Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Reorganizes Cabinet

VOA news

Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai gives a press conference in Harare to announce the reshuffling of ministers belonging to The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party, 23 Jun 2010

Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangarai has sacked some top members of his Movement for Democratic Change from their Cabinet positions. Mr. Tsvangirai says he has made changes to try to deliver more progress for the transitional government.

Prime Minister Tsvangirai's MDC has half the Cabinet posts in the unity government.  He has changed a significant portion of those he appointed when the inclusive government was sworn into power by President Robert Mugabe in February 2009.

Mr. Tsvangirai says although there has been significant progress in stabilizing the economy, many other aspects of change have moved far too slowly.  He said the successes have been overshadowed by the slow pace of reform and abuse of power.

He said these failures have led to loss of confidence in the new administration.

The MDC says many of the continuing breaches of the September 2008 political agreement, the foundation stone of the unity government,  have been selective prosecutions, mainly of MDC legislators and supporters.

Mr. Tsvangirai axed home affairs minister Giles Mutsekwa, criticized by many for failing to control the police, and replaced him with one of the tough women from the MDC, Theresa Makone.  But Makone does not control the man in charge of the police, Commissioner General Augustine Chihuri, who reports only to Mr. Mugabe.

As Zimbabwe continues to suffer massive and widespread power shortages, Mr. Tsvangirai replaced his energy minister, Elias Mudzuriwith, with Elton Mangoma who was previously highly regarded as minister of economic planning.

Mr. Tsvangirai had to clear the changes to the Cabinet with Mr. Mugabe.

"The president was not alarmed.  It is my responsibility," he said. "I do not seek his approval, I seek his endorsement as somebody who is going to swear in these people.  We had a very fruitful discussion on this matter." 

Political analysts and economist have said repeatedly there is little progress in three ministries, justice, mines, and agriculture, which are all controlled by ZANU-PF. 

Mr. Tsvangirai said Mr. Mugabe's failure to immediately swear in Roy Bennett as deputy agriculture minister was an obstacle in the unity government. 

"No one has a veto over who I appoint, and, in this case I have already appointed him as deputy minister of agriculture and it will remain so until this matter is resolved," he said.

The process of writing a new constitution has just begun nine-months behind schedule.  

HOT SEAT: Analyst Tony Reeler on what will resolve the Zim crisis

Subject: HOT SEAT: Analyst Tony Reeler on what will resolve the Zim crisis

LINK:  http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/hotseat230610.htm

SW Radio Africa Transcript

HOT SEAT: Analyst Tony Reeler on what will resolve the Zim crisis

Reeler is the Director of the Research and Advocacy Unit. His organisation recently released the report: 'What are the options for Zimbabwe? Dealing with the obvious!'  Robert Mugabe says elections will be held next year with or without a new constitution and his counterpart in the coalition, Morgan Tsvangirai, agrees the way forward is for an election next year. But what needs to be addressed before it’s possible to hold a truly free and fair election in Zimbabwe ? Does stability bring good elections or good elections bring stability?

BROADCAST: 18 June 2010

VIOLET GONDA : My guest on the Hot Seat programme is Tony Reeler, the director of the Research and Advocacy Unit with his analysis on the unfolding events in Zimbabwe. Tony, let’s start with getting your thoughts on the situation in Zimbabwe. What is your reading of the political situation right now?

TONY REELER: Violet as you may know RAU recently put out a report entitled “What are the options” and we put that out very much in response to the situation as it was at the time and the report came out about a month ago and I think we would argue that the situation has not changed in any material detail, so the arguments we were making in that brief report still stand. If you remember that report, we analysed the situation from the March 2008 election to the current time and essentially what we were arguing was that there was an opportunity in March 2008 for the crisis to be resolved if SADC had acted in a completely different way. They didn’t, the June election emerged and as a consequence of that we ended up with the Global Political Agreement and since that time, what we see is a very polarised, stuck process of an inclusive government that doesn’t really operate like an inclusive government – it operates like two governments largely struggling with each other and despite some small changes if you want, in the humanitarian and economic situation, the major political issues are not being resolved. It’s an inclusive government in name but it certainly doesn’t behave like an inclusive government in behaviour – you know they contradict each other, they countermand each other, they don’t implement the Agreement in full.

So our view was that Zimbabwe was in a political crisis in March 2008 and remains in a political crisis in June 2010. And the question we were trying to address was – what will resolve the crisis? And there are many different views currently at the moment about how this crisis is going to be resolved. The dominant view is it will be resolved by mediation or it will be resolved by the parties coming together and finally agreeing on what the final implementation of the Agreement will be. But our view was, that whatever happens, the final resolution of the crisis will involve an election and so our view was – let’s start looking at the quality of the election because it is the case that all elections since 2000 have been highly disputed affairs and rejected in the main by most of the international community. That’s what we were arguing in brief.

GONDA: We will come to the issue of the elections, but I want to go back to the issue of the stalemate. In your view, why do you think the partners in this GNU, in this inclusive government, are failing to resolve their differences? Why can they not get agreement between them?

REELER: Well you’ve got to start off with the understanding that of the two main parties, they are ideologically different if you want and certainly are competitors. They’re not coming together out of mutual desire to work together. They’re coming together because the situation demands a forced marriage. So in this sense, the Global Political Agreement which is argued to be a solution is really only a starting point for bringing two largely hostile parties together to work out a future. It’s not a solution in itself, it’s a mechanism for a solution and what is working out in this process are the differences between the two parties that existed before the Global Political Agreement was signed and it represents the difficulty of two parties who have been contesting for political power and control of the State since 2000, since before 2000. So this is a marriage of inconvenience you might even put it, it’s not the choice of either of these two parties to be in this relationship together and therefore one must expect an enormous amount of friction and difficulty and suspicion between the two parties.

GONDA: As you said the talks are endless but what do you think is the strategy of the different parties in this unity government?

REELER: I think both parties are clearly committed to not being the person to break the Agreement for a start. I think that would put them in bad odour with SADC because SADC is the key player in this, they brokered this Agreement and they’re supposed to watch it be implemented and act as guarantors. So neither party wishes to break it. Both parties are still in a sense contesting for a balance of power within it – you know – all this argument about who can have which ministry and who can have which governorship and the issues about the Reserve Bank and the Attorney General. That is the central problem with this marriage of inconvenience.

GONDA: And you keep saying both parties but of course there are three parties in this inclusive government. What do you think is the strategy of the Mutambara led MDC?

REELER: Well I think if you’ve been looking at opinion polls. We put one out recently on the views of women and Freedom House did one and then MPOI did one earlier or last year and it’s quite clear that this is a very, very, very minority party. The MDC-M grouping is there by courtesy of the Global Political Agreement but clearly in our view and I think in most people’s view, command no real popular support. So I think their major role is obfuscation. They represent a third opinion and sometimes the third opinion is pretty strange but they’re not in a sense, in our view, added value for this inclusive government because the issue is clearly a contest between the MDC-T and ZANU PF and I think their major role is confusing matters.

GONDA: But what about statements we’ve heard from some of the members of this party, especially from Professor Arthur Mutambara who maintains that his party holds the balance of power in this inclusive government and in a way has become the go-between in terms of bringing the two main parties together?

REELER: Well he’s right. He holds the balance of power but he holds the balance of power because of an elite pact not because that’s how the voters behaved. If we looked at how his party performed in the polls in 2008 it was pretty appallingly poor so he is a very much minority party so it’s a bit fatuous really to argue that he holds the balance of power. The balance of power is held by people who have popular support and can call on real constituencies; he’s there because of an elite pact and because the way the Agreement has been configured and the way things stand is that he’s given a right of veto at a very elite level. We don’t think he represents populist opinion at all and certainly in the opinion poll that RAU did recently with women, I think two women in over two thousand people interviewed thought he had any power in the inclusive government at all. So he’s there by grace and favour of the Agreement but not by any other ground.

GONDA: I understand that most of the women in the survey also said they would not vote for ZANU PF?

REELER: Well I think there’s a continuous trend and it’s always a difficult thing to look at potential voting from opinion surveys. The recent British election will tell you that but consistently over three opinion surveys, you have MDC Tsvangirai hovering at around something like 50%, ZANU PF somewhere between nine and 12% but you have 27% of the people unwilling to state their political party preference and you have to decide which way are those folk going. Are they going in favour of ZANU PF, are they going in favour of MDC-T, are they all closet MDC-M supporters? But I think the general trend is and that’s borne out by the March election and continued is that ZANU PF increasingly has, or has decreasingly popular support in the country and that is of course a material issue for any future election.

GONDA: And what are the main concerns of the people on the ground, especially the people that participated in the survey?

REELER: Well we asked them a very interesting question. We asked them what is the way forward? And we gave them a choice of – what are the three most important things for you to solve the problems with Zimbabwe? And that came back in rank order, three things. They said Number One – an end to violence, Number Two – free and fair elections and Number Three – democracy and those are very important things coming from ordinary citizens because that’s what has continuously emerged from the Afro-barometer surveys over the last five or six years - is they show that Zimbabweans have a very acute understanding of what democracy is, its manifestations and that they also have a very acute understanding that they don’t have a democracy.

So what you can see is Zimbabweans want a solution, they want a solution in a particular way, they want elections that are non-violent that restore democracy essentially. I think they also said there has been some improvement due to the inclusive government and the Global Political Agreement and they saw some improvements in health and a few improvements in education but they also saw many areas in which there was no improvement whatsoever. What we are hearing from discussions within communities are people who are deeply concerned about whether this Global Political Agreement and the inclusive government is working and people who are very concerned that there is a resolution to this crisis. And I think what people are saying is they understand quite clearly that the solution to a political crisis will be an election. That’s the Zimbabwean perspective. In other countries what used to happen was that you used to have military coups or rebellions as we’ve had to do to get rid of white colonial power here but Zimbabweans are saying they put their faith in an electoral process. That’s what they hope will resolve the crisis and clearly what that means is, is that people’s votes translate into the reality they expect and the majority of people, when they vote, expect a particular outcome, that they will in fact elect the party of their choice.

GONDA: We have heard what the principals in this coalition government have been saying on the issue of elections. We have Mutambara on the one hand saying that we need reforms first before we have an election but ZANU PF and, well Mugabe and Tsvangirai on the other hand have both said they want elections as soon as possible and in fact next year. In your view, what mechanism will actually resolve this problem that we have and restore stability?

REELER: Those are the two arguments currently aren’t they? One that says stability will bring good elections and the other argument says good elections will bring stability and these are the two arguments that have been discussed. You have the principals of the two major players saying we have to go to elections, the minority group saying too early. You have MPs saying it’s too early and there’s an enormous amount of contradictory opinion about whether we should be going to elections or not. Now in our view the question is not so much whether or when we go to elections, it will have to be at some point, we will have to go to elections, it is to do with the quality of the elections that is the key issue here. And that’s the major problem isn’t it since 2000? In the last ten years all these elections are disputed.

Now in our paper when we were arguing about what were the options, we pointed out that in a way, March 2008 was almost an exemplary election. There was very little pre-poll violence, there was still pre-poll violence; the process of the election through the voting and in the early stages of publishing the result looked very good indeed. The consequence of that election was a very clear result – Morgan Tsvangirai came first in the presidential race; MDC-T had a clear majority and that’s the result that the election showed. Now at that particular point and this is the key issue for elections, that particular point, SADC had a number of options. They could have insisted and applied pressure to say you’ve got a clear result, stability requires you to go with this result and we would put pressure on ZANU PF to accept the result, Morgan Tsvangirai sworn in as president, the MDC assumes the government. That didn’t happen and the rest is history.

So our view is that it’s the quality of an election that we have to be looking at. Not when but how. Whether it’s in 2011 or 2012 or 2020, the crisis will be resolved by an election and that election has to be genuine, free and fair and able to be accepted by the entire international community and the key to that is SADC. They have been given by Africa, the mandate to deal with the regional issue, the regional body SADC has empowered South Africa to be the mediator and the facilitator – whatever term one wants to use on this thing – and they will be the guarantors and the facilitators of any election. And so the west and anybody else can scream and shout, but in the end, it’s SADC who will have a primary role in ensuring that the election meet the minimum standards that apply in SADC region and then also ensuring that if the result, for example were to favour the Tsvangirai faction, that they guarantee transfer of power. There’s nothing that the EC or the United States or anybody else can do about that and it’s not entirely an internal matter because now the GPA has involved the entire region, SADC are the guarantors and that’s the key, but they will insist on the kinds of conditions that will allow Zimbabwean citizens to freely choose the government of their choice and guarantee the transfer of power takes place. That for us in a nutshell is the problem and it’s very important that we’re looking at new constitutions and national healing and those things but if we’re not doing the work that will ensure that, with or without a constitution, there will be a genuine free fair acceptable election, then the crisis will continue in our view.

GONDA: I was actually going to ask that with or without a new constitution, can Zimbabwe’s security forces for example, be brought under civilian control because they have also been a major factor in this crisis?

REELER: Well I think the aspiration of the Global Political Agreement was that there would be constitutional reform followed by an election and that constitution would lay the grounds for an election and a new democratic state. Mugabe has already said with or without a constitution, there will be elections next year and we agreed, with or without a new constitution, there will be elections. I think we have some pessimism in RAU that the constitutional process will deliver the kind of constitution that Zimbabweans want, but that’s a personal view, we can’t pre-judge the process, the process may be highly effective. But in terms of what I was talking about earlier, in SADC guaranteeing or creating the conditions for free and fair elections, the critical issue is clearly the security forces must be under total civilian control and that doesn’t mean of one party, it means under the control of the government as a whole and we don’t see much evidence that that has in fact taken place, notwithstanding the National Security Council. When members of JOC can carpet a trade unionist and complain about a report and a film, they are clearly interfering in civilian affairs. They have no right to do that, there’s no legal basis for them doing it but they nonetheless do it. So that is a key issue as you say, is the return of the security forces to genuine civilian control. It’s a crunch issue but against that is also the issues for elections, as I think electoral commission needs to be genuinely independent and has control of all aspects of elections – the voters’ roll, the limitation, the polling, how the media is used to get people’s views across.

In every way, what we’ve seen in past elections is that every aspect of the election has failed the test or certainly not conformed to the SADC principles and guidelines for the holding of democratic elections – fails it on every front. So there’s a big job to be done; the security forces are important but there’s a whole range of other things that need to be addressed with urgency, in our view, if there’s a probability that there’s going to be an election in 2011.

GONDA: Right and how realistic are calls for a peacekeeping force?

REELER: They are good calls. My view is that you put peacekeeping forces in countries that are failed states or, you don’t put, United Nations will only appear in any of these situations where the country has an inability to be able to run itself. This is not the case in Zimbabwe. The problem is that they don’t obey certain parts of the government, so I don’t think we’ll get a peacekeeping force, I think probably the best we can have is incredibly intense observation and that would require the cooperation of the State in Zimbabwe where you have observers observing the electoral commission, the police, the army, the prisons, the civics, the political parties, the rallies – there are different ways of doing this thing. The notion that we would turn over administration to some kind of peacekeeping force I think is very unlikely but I think SADC could insist on the kinds of level of observation, very intense observation that could ensure a genuine election.

GONDA: SADC is due to hold a summit in August and although it’s not clear yet whether Zimbabwe’s deadlocked power sharing agreement will be an item on the agenda, speculation is rife that President Zuma may advocate for fresh elections for Zimbabwe when he submits his report to the regional body. What are you reading from Zuma’s style of mediation and how significant is his role now to break this political impasse?

REELER: OK, I think he’s already made the statement that he, and Ian Khama has made the similar statement, that this crisis will be resolved by election and we hear speculation that he wants a negotiated timetable for election and I suspect that he and every other SADC leader knows just as well as anybody else that this will be resolved by election but I think he will, my guess is that he will call for some kind of timetable to that. He’s not going to leave this process open-ended to drag on for year after year after year.

I think his style is clearly different to Mbeki, it’s been a much more assertive style in dealing with Zimbabwe but on the other hand he also has the constraints of being the hegemonic power in this region and definitely not wanting to be seen like a bully and his government, or the government he has inherited has instituted this whole process of the Global Political Agreement so they are going to have to try and make that work too. But I think his hands are to some extent tied by the fact that we have the GPA and if the parties here continue to insist endlessly that they can make this thing work then his hands are tied, but I think he will on the other hand also, push very hard for some kind of resolution and that’s going to be the difficulty because it’s one thing to push for a negotiated timetable for elections, it’s entirely another to guarantee that those elections in the end will be the kind of elections that resolve the crisis.

GONDA: Right and back home, critics have said that the leadership of the MDC is now completely consumed in trying to make this GNU work but on the other hand the party’s not building any structures, internal structures and preparing for elections. Now given the fact that all party leaders are in government, will it be prudent for the MDC to reshuffle perhaps cabinet ministers back to the party in preparation for the next elections?

REELER: I think the MDC, the Tsvangirai faction has a very, very difficult task. They do have to try to make the government work, they committed themselves to it and they’re trying very hard to make it work and that clearly takes enormous resources of a party that has had an extremely difficult time in the last ten years. So I think they’re stretched, they’re stretched in making government work and therefore they’re also to some extent stretched in trying to build the party structures ahead of elections. But I think the MDC, one of the positions I have heard from the MDC is that they don’t fear elections, what they fear is their inability to effect transfer of power - in fact they won’t be given power, they can win an election but they’re not going to end up with the government.

So I think they are being pretty realistic. I think it’s terribly easy to criticise the MDC all the time and blame them for everything that is going wrong but the reality is they are working against a party that is absolutely determined not to surrender political power and there has been considerable evidence of ways in which they’ve tried to maintain their political power by means outside the constitution. So MDC is committed to try to do it within the constitution and within democracy and using democratic tools. That can be very difficult with a political party that refuses to play the game by the same rule. So I think they have to be realistic and they do know they’re going to go for elections and I think that’s why Morgan Tsvangirai said we will face elections and I think they are doing their best on the ground to try and build party structures and maintain government but it’s an exceptionally difficult task for them.

GONDA: And as a human rights activist, what are your thoughts on the issue of, on justice issues? Can you have stability at the price of injustice?

REELER: You know its back to that old argument – stability produces democracy or democracy produces stability? I tend to believe that democracy produces stability and that’s a general argument I think that’s accepted widely and that the difficulty in Zimbabwe is that so many institutions have been compromised in the last ten years. We have deep concerns about the whole judicial process, we’ve had deep concerns about the behaviour of the Attorney General, we have deep concerns about the partisanship of the police and so on and so on. So it is a very, very difficult situation here and that the argument I think that some people are saying ‘well we have to transform all those institutions before we have a possibility of a decent election’, and there’s some merit in that argument – if we were to have security sector reform and the police would now work wholly within the constitution and the police act and the judiciary could be seen to be absolutely independent of any political influence and the media space is completely open, shortwave radio could broadcast from within Zimbabwe, there wouldn’t be a problem, would there?

And so the argument is can you achieve those things without an election first? And this is the crunch political question, in our view, is we don’t believe that those things can be transformed without an election and a transfer of political power because the current political power maintains that situation as it is. And there are different views about that, I’m not sure which view is going to prevail, the only thing that I can be 100% certain of is that whether it’s next year, the year after or the year after that, we will have an election and that election will either resolve the crisis or it will attenuate and it will go on.

GONDA: And a final word Tony?

REELER: I think people tend to be so desperately pessimistic about Zimbabwe. I think that we should see what Zimbabweans have done in the last ten years through democratic peaceful struggle, is quite exceptional and I think people need to pat themselves on the back. The country is a disaster in many ways but there are such encouraging signs all over the place of people’s demand for democracy and understanding of democracy that I think it can only be a very bright future for Zimbabwe if we can resolve the problems and if we can persuade SADC to do its job and do its job properly.

GONDA: That was Tony Reeler, the director of the Research and Advocacy Unit. Thank you very much Tony for speaking to us on the programme Hot Seat.

REELER: Pleasure Violet, keep well.

Feedback can be sent to violet@swradioafrica.com

JAG COMPENSATION/RESTITUTION COMMUNIQUE - OPEN DEBATE dated 23 JUNE 2010

Subject: JAG COMPENSATION/RESTITUTION COMMUNIQUE - OPEN DEBATE dated 23 JUNE 2010

JUSTICE FOR AGRICULTURE - JAG COMPENSATION / RESTITUTION COMMUNIQUE

- OPEN DEBATE

Dated 23 June 2010

Email: jag@mango.zw : justiceforagriculture@zol.co.zw

JAG Hotlines: +263 (011) 610 073, +263 (04) 730507.  If you are in trouble or need advice, please don't hesitate to contact us - we're here to help!

To subscribe/unsubscribe to the JAG mailing list, please email:

jag@mango.zw with subject line "subscribe" or "unsubscribe".

=========================================================

1.  Ben Freeth

2.  Rob Lucas - Compensation Debate

3.  Monty Hunter to Dave Joubert

4.  Dave Joubert letter to Monty Hunter

5.  Monty Hunter letter to Dave Joubert

6.  Monty Hunter letter to Dave Joubert

7.  Dave Joubert letter to Monty Hunter

8.  Vernon Nicolle

9.  Chris Aston

10.  Wynand Hart

11.  Clive & Ann Hein

=====================================================

1.  Ben Freeth

Dear Jag

In reference to Mr. Robinsons letter, there is a strange irony in the fact that there has been considerable recognition for our little fight from Mount Carmel Farm for the farmer and farm worker community all over the world; and yet I still remain suspended from the Commercial Farmers Union nearly 8 years later without, amongst everything else, even having got my leave pay yet!

Mr. Dave Joubert in his excellent letter talks of the CFU past; and it is not by coincidence that all the former appeasement Presidents remain amongst the 5 percent of farmers still farming [Nick Swanapoel, Doug Taylor-Freeme, Colin Cloete].  The vast majority of their members lost everything.  That is how dictatorships work.

If the new leadership of the CFU is really serious about creating a united future there are various things I believe it needs to do:

1. Apologise unreservedly to God and the members and former members who built the Union for not standing up against tyranny and for just simply doing what their evil political masters told them to do by: a/refusing to protect members by taking unjust and ungodly  laws to court b/refusing to publicise evil and injustice through the CFU closing down of sit-reps, the farmer magazine, other reports and for not having press conferences or putting out robust statements condemning the injustices taking place against farmers and farm workers. c/treating people like myself who believe in standing for justice like criminals.  The CFU leadership did not make "mistakes."  They had a clear appeasement strategy that allowed their members along with over 2 million farm workers get yoked under a dictatorship of evil oppression.

2. Produce a clear CFU policy document with a clear legal strategy on compensation, restitution and accountability [under international law not Zimbabwean law] and the rebuilding of agriculture on Godly foundations so that we all know what we would be signing up for if we joined the Union.

This policy and strategy needs to be accompanied by a clear, implementable plan with achievable and measurable goals and time lines where applicable.

3. Change the CFU constitution so that it is more difficult for there to be a repeat performance in the future where a few ZANU PF connected farmers on council or on the side lines of council have been able to dictate who the leaders of the Union are and what the policy of the Union should be.

4. Make every effort to meet with and discuss common policy and actions with SACFA and other organisations so that farmer and farm worker organisations can go forward with a united front.

If farmers and ex farmers see these four concrete actions outlined above get implemented expeditiously ahead of the CFU congress in just over a month's time, we will see the Union and us all moving forward.

Until then I am afraid scepticism and mistrust will remain the order of the day.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Freeth  (Zim)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.  Rob Lucas - Compensation Debate

Hi JAG and Dave Joubert,

For once we have someone writing something that is straight and to the point,

thankyou.

Regards

Rob Lucas (now in Aus.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.  Monty Hunter letter to Dave Joubert

Dear Dave,

I do agree with you on the ethical issues you raised regarding the need to sort out the source of all the problems before dealing with the effects. If more people had held that perspective from day one, perhaps we would not be in the current predicament.

Most of the rest of your email raised various emotions within me including disappointment, disbelief and in some instances, unfortunately some anger.

If your intention was to raise awareness that there are some very entrepreneurial people and organisations that are set to make a bundle of money in the event of realisation of compensation, then I don't think anyone would disagree with you, however I don't think that it constitutes an ulterior motive. While many people are trying to sow unity and rebuild effective and recognisable mandates, your letter was potentially detrimental to that effort. I am sure most people know that some organisations and individuals stand to make great money in the event of compensation, however what your letter failed to effectively acknowledge was the incredible effort that many of those you either directly or indirectly berated have put in. Yes, I am sure there is an increased motivation factor involved in some of those peoples actions due to what they may make out of a successful compensation bid, however without their efforts, our chances of ever receiving any compensation would be greatly reduced. There are, I believe, discussions amongst the relevant people as to what constitutes fair payment in terms of fees and I am sure that in the end, it won't take a huge chunk out of individual compensation claims (In the event that it does, I will be first in line to approach the problem with vigour at the appropriate time). In attacking these people I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

Many of the people working in the various groups you have mentioned have put their time in for free, they operate on very tight budgets, much of which is contributed in by themselves at their risk (yes, an entrepreneurial investment decision in part).

There will always be hiccups, spoilers and people with bad motives, that has to be considered and dealt with appropriately.

I think that what is most important is that the general movement of an important issue is forward. I hope that few people use your letter to the extent of making decisions as a result of it because I could not identify any obvious sign of forward movement.

Your assertion that everyone will be able to avail of compensation in the event that it materialises is correct but misguiding in the way you put it. It would take several decades for all affected title holders to go through the entire process separately. A united group with an effective and representative mandate can bring the number of years down to single digits for everyone. Your assertion that perhaps CFU has an ulterior motive for their membership drive is unfortunate to say the least. (I do, however wish to add my voice to those that are calling for a reduced membership fee - I would say $30/annum is the right figure) To imply that Deon Theron, the current president may have ulterior motives is also unfortunate to say the least unless you have evidence to the contrary in which case I would appreciate the furnishing of such evidence.

I would say that the CFU needs help and in many ways. Their pool of accessible resources is severely depleted through no major fault of the current and previous presidency  I believe that ultimately their team of negotiators needs to be enhanced and I hope that at the appropriate time, they accept the idea of building a very strong negotiating team from within and outside of their membership and executive ranks so that we have the most powerful and informed team available representing us in appropriate forums. There are people out there with very good contacts and information that can lend well to this idea of an enhanced negotiating team and the CFU MUST cast the net wide to bring these people onto a team at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.

I am sure that real discussions to this effect will begin if they haven't already. You are right that ultimately, it is the Government that will have the key seat, however we as dispossessed farmers will have a seat at the table and we must demand the recognition of all of our internationally recognised rights.

In the absence of reasonable evidence, your attack on all of the concerned organisations and individuals should perhaps have emanated from more informed research and have been written with the intent of somehow being constructive. Even the removal of dead or dangerous wood in the event that that is necessary is constructive but I couldn't make out from your email what you were proposing (to do) to sort out the myriad of problems you presented.

I feel that you would benefit personally from giving the current CFU leadership a chance and where possible, encourage them and help to guide them in the right direction by effectively engaging them in whetever way you find appropriate. By approaching the organisations involved in the compensation drive, I believe that your knowledge, drive and moral background could be of much use to them.

I trust that you will take this letter in the spirit that it was intended and not as a generalised attack on your person.

Kind regards,

Monty Hunter (Zim)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.  Dave Joubert letter to Monty Hunter

Hi Monty,

Welcome to the debate, and thank you for your response to my views.

I will keep my response short and to the point, but I would ask you to reread my own contribution, because excepting my jibe at the farmers themselves to which you agree) and my disdainful reference to the current political quagmire, there is I submit no input which is not either factually supported and cross referenced, or capable of been substantiated. Such is the massive political intrigue and dirty dealings in the political arena that surely we must  have the right to pose questions if there is a possibility that the rights of farmers could be prejudiced.

There are essentially four areas that should be of great concern to us

all:

1/On their own admission the CFU and Valcon have been formulating policy on behalf of farmers for which they have no mandate for a long time.

There has been a lot of positives emerge, but is it right that the views of others such as JAG and SAFCA are excluded, when in fact these are the organizations have been at the very heart of fighting for farmers rights from the very beginning.? The membership of these combined organizations far exceeds that of CFU, so is it right that their views are excluded? Is it not right to put CFU on terms, before we give them a mandate? As an example, I have attached a document prepared by Wynand Hart for you to read. Should views of this calibre be excluded from the process? I ask you to take particular note, the emphasis to get the "Global  Figure"

right the first time.

2/ Given the fact that it is now clear, that the Dutch farmers case does not adequately address proper compensation for farmers' is it not right to question the rightful compensation approach, especially given the fact that other court proceedings already decided, and others yet to follow, will greatly influence the "global picture" in favor of the farmer.?

3/ Is it wrong to challenge the assertions' contained in Mr.Benjamins letter, especially since his views were circulated by an interested party?

4/Is it wrong to robustly enquire the real intention behind an exclusive mandate? Clearly, if the proposals put forward by CFU this week were all encompassing and reflected all the concerns of the farmers', then a mandate would not be necessary. I say this, as there is a lot of merit to the approach, which could easily become the policy document I referred to in my letter,

I feel these are honest questions which required qualified answers.

Unfortunately, we do not get the answers.

In recent months, from the comfort of our living rooms' we have been able to witness the entire political landscape of the United Kingdom change forever, and for the better. For anyone who has followed the  "no holds barred" debate in their parliament, would have to agree that the manner I have raised  these issues would rank nothing short of a rather meek church sermon.

Somehow, in Zimbabwe, robust debate is not allowed for fear of raising sensitivities or "rocking the boat". If you do rock the boat you are emotional, angry and bitter.

We have one last chance to get matters right in Zimbabwe, and we not achieve this by simply accepting at face value what leadership say. With respect, robust debate is part of the process, and participants should accept it as such. It comes with the territory of leadership!

Please continue to support the debate. It is vibrant and vital

Best Regards,

Dave Joubert  (South Africa)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.  Monty Hunter letter to Dave Joubert

Hi Dave,

Your 'Devil's Advocate' approach is quite welcome because we should always challenge where we see necessary and I agree with much of what you have said below. My main point in my previous email was that your correspondence (in that email) is full of accusations and negative assertions which without positive suggestions on how to address or approach the problem is not very effective and leaves those that you berate with little opportunity to immediately enter into positive discussion with you (and the clock is ticking). I am sure that some of those you berated are not even considering responding to your email because you have not opened an avenue for immediate and effective engagement. At a time when effective (face to face is best) communications is difficult, one needs to capitalise on each and every opportunity to move the greater issue forward in some way. I believe that the general movement as a result of your previous email would not be forward.

 - It is my understanding that effective and relevant organisations are developing good communications with CFU.

 - Every month there is an open CFU meeting for all farmers and interested people to contribute to debate. I am sure that the leadership does address questions put to them in that forum. I fail to see why you assert that CFU is not giving answers - The leadership is very busy, however most of the people I know say that their communications are improving and thus far in the last few years, I have not had an email unanswered from them.

 - I question why you think that robust debate is not allowed in Zimbabwe. Robust, negative debate is difficult to engage effectively.

Robust, positive debate is easier to engage effectively. Positive debate can be negative in its content but its intention can be positive and forward in movement.

I would like to challenge you to write another letter which proposes a way out of the mess you described and what can be done to ensure that potentially bad apples do not spoil the party.

I insert some direct responses to your last email in your text below.

Kind regards,

Monty Hunter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.  Monty Hunter letter to Dave Joubert

Hi Dave,

I have reread my email and feel that some of it was bordering on rude.

This was not my intention and I apologise for the way parts of it came across.

We need now more than ever, a unified and effective voice and anything that seems to jeopardise that drive without proposing an effective and realistic way to improve the situation draws my frustration. I respect the obvious time that you put into your concern for important issues regarding Zim.

Please feel free to forward this to anyone who was involved in the conversation.

Kind regards,

Monty Hunter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.  Dave Joubert letter to Monty Hunter

Hi Monty,

Absolutely no offence or harm done.But I will continue to work with you as I believe, having started carefully reading the CFU Proposal that our farmers have been gravely duped. In principle those that have signed the mandate have effectively given over their rights in law and the opportunity to return to their land, as they are absolutely entitled to demand,in return for a "Bill of sale" which has no term and is locked in to valuations absolutely way below what they should be on legally befitting..I don't really mind anyone giving a mandate if they fully understand, but for anyone who at least for his benefit or maybe for his children, or for the sake of the country would like to like to continue as a citizen, I believe there are going to be hell to play. I just feel for all those desperate people who are searching in vain for something to get by on, this is tragic. The point is that nobody is getting anything any sooner, until its legal, and if you read carefully, is what the CFU is admitting. Monty, it is not what we have fought for, especially given the support of the population that we have and the prospect of rebuilding a fine environment.

The SADC Tribunal and Von Abo cases are going to shame this thing.

I need to do more legal research but will bounce it off you asap.

I have had some really wonderful messages of support from all over the world on the issue, and there are many out there with grave concerns.

Best Regards,

Dave Joubert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.  Vernon Nicolle letter to Dave Joubert

Dear Dave

Having been accused of not being specific enough in the past, I have decided to respond to you in the form of a letter having read your news letter.

I do not get anything from JAG, not being a member anymore so am not up to speed on JAG developments. I last wrote to JAG when you guys had your extraordinary AGM, you may recall the email.

An ex farmer said to me while I was in Perth last week, " Have you looked at yourself in the mirror recently ? Have you ? "  What he was implying was we are not getting any younger !  Then he said "

How is compensation coming on ?"

When I last wrote to JWW I said first prize is the goal, but we live in a hard world, and we need to be realistic. If it means getting second prize is all we can get, then, for the sake of a deal, and survival [ by not selling our soles as you imply.] a deal needs to be done. You can have as many principals as you like, but unless you sit at the top table when discussions are taking place, you will not succeed.

I also said whether we like it or not, the CFU are the vehicle. If you have not picked that up in your travels, then I am sorry. Hence my encouraging displaced farmers to rejoin the CFU.

Like you I am nervous of the CFU from its past record. However for good or bad, those remaining farmers are now suffering and being kicked off.

They forget we went through the same traumas many years ago ! Thank god, and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, because if they were not, maybe we would have an even larger battle on our hands. For the record I have been at log aheads with Dough T-Freeme, as in my opinion he is one of our problems. He knows that and we have had many emails. Thank goodness he is out of CFU, I think, and also having farms taken. It is amazing how attitudes do change when one looses ones property and livelihood.

The new President and Vice have managed to get back on the road. Yes one hell of a mess has been left behind, but at least we are on the same page, and progress is being made. They need encouragement and help. JAG would be well advised to get on the same road, because you can only influence if you are in the same car.

Meaningful decisions are made to-day and to-morrow. Yesterday is for the history books, and assists us in making to-days decisions. I have tried to look outside the square, and hopefully you will take note of some of them. I am not here to lecture you, but to offer how we ex / displaced farmers see matters abroad.

You have made a number of assumptions which are incorrect in my view so here goes.

Like JAG, I was a founder member of AgricAfrica. Both were set up because of the CFU policies at the time of the fast track land invasion. Our principals and desire to fight for our rights are all documented.

You rightfully say AA and Valcon are commercial organisations, and thank goodness they were set up. Yes I am a small shareholder in AA, but firstly a farmer. We now have a data base, which is second to none.

Between us we have mandates from farmers, and let me remind you here, we joined of our own free will. Still a lot to be done I know, but who else has achieved anything close, I submit no one. We all accepted there were percentages involved. When Compensation / Restitution become a reality, there will be negotiations on the % that I have no doubt. But let's get there first, and then negotiate. Until it's a reality we are dreaming.

No one, not even you know what the final settlement will be. What I do know, is if we don't pull together it will be less, and again us farmers will be the losers thanks to those who believe in principal, but can't see the wood for the trees. It has been the tragic story of us farmers in Zimbabwe, divided and rule, Mugabe's trump card. Is it not time to pull together, and do the best we can for our fellow ex farmers.

The Dutch case has been a bench mark, and I know you don't agree.

We at AA believed, as with most of our mandate holders, that the court case was necessary. We won Internationally, and a formula is now in place.[ Yes it could have been better] Previously there was nothing, so in my view we got second prize. Yes 60 %, but 10% capitalised every six months now puts your property which was professionally valued by Valcon and others at triple the value for those who were evicted 9 years ago. I believe that is an achievement and starting point, don't you ?

All the other cases will add to the overall picture, and assist when the Powers that be come to the table, and the final settlement is reached.

Positive involvement by us all will help at the end of the day. If we are seen to be divided our enemies will love it and capitalise on our weaknesses. Do you want to be on the divided side?

When I put pen to paper the other day, firstly I was shot down for taking things for granted, hence my follow up of Oops for the sake of clarity.

Dave let me assure you from this end of the world -  Me in Australia and Harry Newmarch in New Zealand - We have a large data base of displaced farmers, and without exception, I as the representative  [ not elected but keeping ex farmers informed as best I can] have been told in no uncertain terms, AA have been given our mandate and to go and get the best possible deal, which is why the % is there.

What is your hang up with Valcon ?

You say the CFU have not got a balanced view. The only way they will get a balanced view is to get involved. You cannot sit on the fence and throw stones and expect to influence can you? All I read is bitch and moan, but where is your input?

Believe it or not we still live in a democratic society when it comes to the CFU.

Your three issues

1. Negotiations are well down the road. " imminent

Have you had a discussion with Valcon, don't you think progress is being

 made, or do you want to stop and wind the clock back ? Surely in your position you should discuss your concerns with them, and not in public.

I hope you have not made your comments, when referring to imminent out of context. Not being at the meetings we are not able to make our own judgement. It is very easy to say something, and having it misread, I know my fingers still burn.

2.You will never receive.

If we lived in a first world country, disturbance loss, trauma etc would all be the go. I would love to see them, but with the best wish in the world, you must be dreaming. Again do we stop all for the sake of principal, or make a deal and move on.

3.The International .

Unfortunately or fortunately we are advised that the CFU are the vehicle, by all our International advisers, hence my plea for farmers to rejoin, and then do our best to influence CFU from within.

CFU as the vehicle has bugged me for some time, but by getting involved I have and am doing my best to influence, encourage and then hopefully they will make comms with the right politicians, IMF, World Bank etc.

Hopefully with most of us supporting CFU they can get a settlement that we can live with and get on with our lives, whether we choose Zimbabwe or wish to remain abroad.

Dave you assume the Land Commission will have Quite frankly we don't know. You assume we should remain focussed on the realities and resist the urge to cash in before we are in a position to apply our minds to best advantage. Where have you been for the last ten years, and how much longer do we have to wait for best advantage ? Please stop dreaming, and if you have a viable alternative lets have it. Believe me principal will not put money in my bank.

Mr Benjamin's letter was put out more as an information letter as I see it. I see no problems there. What is your hang up ? You assume it was endorsed by all et al.

When they do get paid, the formulae is in place, and they can get on with life where ever, and become a citizen of the country of their choice, what is wrong with that. As I read it for example, if my farm was valued at $ 1 Million @ 60% = $600,000. After 8 years it is +- $ 2,756,983.10.

Ask me where the principal is here. If we were to put out a cash settlement for displaced farmers based on the above, you would be killed in the rush. Who is dreaming here you or me ?

So one might say what is FAIR COMPENSATION. I say this to you, I went to my farm last year, what a mess !!!! I don't see any chance of getting it back, besides I am 66 and getting on like so many others. It is time to move on and do a deal.

Get on board and let's row the boat together.

Thanks for listening.

Regards to you and all at JAG.

Vernon  Nicolle. (Australia)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.  Chris Aston

Thank you Jag,

Maybe I took myself off the mailing list years ago although I was in receipt of all the buzz during the recent conflict that I am glad to see

you survived.   And thankfully Gerry forwarded me D.A.Joubert's letter

before, in Zambian isolation, I succumbed to the CFU and sent them any

money.   That story of, "you are either in it or out of it," is a

difficult one to resist from a distance, but Joubert is correct where he says it has never been about the money, it would be nice, but the principles behind this whole affair have always been far more important...........I just needed reminding.

I trust you are all well and thank you for your work on our behalves,

Chris Aston

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.  Wynand Hart letter to Dave Joubert

Hi Dave,

Your letter is brilliant and very well thought through.

I applaud your stand on legal rights because that is the key to the matter.

You are just as trusting of meetings behind closed doors as what most of us are. Why close a door? Maybe it is to shut out the opinions and the rights of the people who are the claimants for the compensation.

It seems that you have also realized that the tail is wagging the dog in that the mandate is being abused.

The Valuators now suddenly become negotiators will also make sure that they are the main beneficiaries.

I have a slight variation on the ultimate solution than the one you propose in that I believe that we can and should control the time line through legal action.

I will send you a copy of the document as an attachment to the next e-mail.

Regards

Wynand Hart (Zim)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.  Clive & Ann Hein

Thank you to Dave Joubert for displaying a set of principles which we have not had the good fortune to witness for some considerable time.

Clive and Ann Hein (Zim)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Watch 24/2010 - 23rd June [MDC-T Ministerial Reshuffle]

BILL WATCH 24/2010

[23rd June 2010]

MDC-T Ministerial Reshuffle

At a press conference at MDC-T headquarters at midday today Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai announced a reshuffle of MDC-T Ministers and Deputy Ministers.  Mr Tsvangirai said the changes are with immediate effect and that new office-bearers will be sworn in tomorrow, 24th June. 

The details are given in the Prime Minister’s statement, the full text of which is set out below.  In brief the changes are: 

Dropped from Government:  two Ministers [Elias Mudzuri and Fidelis Mhashu] and two Deputy Ministers [Evelyn Masaiti and Thamsanqa Mahlangu] are redeployed from government to positions in the MDC-T party

Ministers changing portfolios:  five Cabinet Ministers [Elton Mangoma, Theresa Makone, Giles Mutsekwa, Gorden Moyo and Joel Gabuza] change portfolios

Deputy Ministers changing portfolios:  two Deputy Ministers [Murisi Zvizvai and Jesse Majome] change portfolios

New Ministers:  two new Cabinet Ministers [former Deputy Minister Jameson Timba and Tapiwa Mashakada MP] will be appointed

New Deputy Ministers:  three new deputy Ministers  [Gift Chimanikire MP, Senator Obert Gutu and Tongai Matutu MP] will be appointed  

Not affected by the reshuffle are:

Ministers Tendai Biti [Finance], Paurina Gwanyanya [Labour], Nelson Chamisa [Information Communication Technology], Eric Matinenga [Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs], Eliphas Mukonoweshuro [Public Service], Henry Madzorera [Health and Child Welfare], Henry Dzinotyiwei [Science and Technology] and Samuel Sipepa Nkomo [Water Resources and Development]

Deputy Ministers Moses Mzila Ndlovu [Foreign Affairs], Tichaona Mudzingwa [Transport] and Cecil Zvidzai [Local Government]

Deputy Minister Designate Roy Bennett [Agriculture].  [Answering a question about Mr Bennett, the Prime Minister said he had appointed Mr Bennett to this position and nothing had changed; President Mugabe’s refusal to swear him in was one of the outstanding issues to be referred to the SADC facilitator, South African President Zuma.]

Statement by The President of the Movement for Democratic Change and Prime Minister of the Republic of Zimbabwe, the Right Honourable Morgan Tsvangirai

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am here today to announce a ministerial reshuffle. This reshuffle is about the MDC delivering to the people of Zimbabwe what they are looking for - real change.

Over the past 16 months, we have recorded definite success in certain areas.

·         We have brought sanity and stability to the economy.

·         We have revived the health sector, which had all but collapsed.

·         We have got the schools back up and running, and textbooks distributed.

·         We now have independent daily newspapers registered to operate.

·         Basic services such as sewerage reticulation, refuse collection and water provision have been restored in many areas.

However, we still have many challenges; and these frankly overshadow our successes to-date.

·         The pace of reform has been painfully slow

·         Abuses of power are still all too common

·         Many people are still struggling to make a living wage, and provide for their families.

·         Infrastructure rehabilitation and energy supply continue to inhibit development.

I am acutely aware that these and other challenges have led to a loss of confidence in the new administration amongst the electorate.

In response to this, as Prime Minister and President of the MDC, I have just completed a comprehensive review of the performance of the Government, and in particular of my Office and those Ministers who represent the MDC.

As a result, I have decided on a number of changes needed to strengthen the performance of the MDC in government and outside government, in order to deliver real change to the people of Zimbabwe.

These changes, are being made with immediate effect, and the new ministers will be sworn in tomorrow, Thursday 24th June.

The changes that are being implemented are as follows:

The following Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers are being redeployed within the Party to strengthen and add momentum to Party programmes:

Elias Mudzuri, formerly Minister of Energy and Power Development, and the Party's National Organiser

Fidelis Mhashu, formerly Minister of National Housing and Social Amenities, and the Party's National Executive Member for Chitungwiza

Evelyn Masaiti, formerly Deputy Minister of Women's Affairs, Gender & Community Development, and the Party's Secretary of the Women's Assembly

Thamasanqa Mhalangu, formerly Deputy Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation & Empowerment, and the Party's National Youth Chairperson.

The following will become Cabinet Ministers:

Jameson Timba, formerly Deputy Minister of Media, Information & Publicity, will become Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office

Tapiwa Mashakada will become Minister of Economic Planning & Investment Promotion

The following will become Deputy Ministers:

Gift Chimanikire will become Deputy Minister of Mines & Mining Development

Obert Gutu will become Deputy Minister of Justice & Legal Affairs.

Tongai Matutu will become Deputy Minister of Youth, Indigenisation & Empowerment

The following Cabinet Ministers will change portfolios, as follows:

Elton Mangoma, formerly Minister of Economic Planning & Investment Promotion, will become Minister of Energy & Power Development

Theresa Makone, formerly Minister of Public Works, will become Minister of Home Affairs

Giles Mutsekwa, formerly Minister of Home Affairs, will become co-Minister of Housing & Social Amenities

Gorden Moyo, formerly Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office, will become Minister of State Enterprises & Parastatals

Joel Gabuza, formerly Minister of State Enterprises & Parastatals, will become Minister of Public Works

The following Deputy Ministers will change portfolios, as follows:

Murisi Zvizvai, formerly Deputy Minister of Mines & Mining Development, will become Deputy Minister of Media, Information & Publicity

Jesse Majome, formerly Deputy Minister of Justice & Legal Affairs, will become Deputy Minister of Women's Affairs, Gender & Community Development

Ladies and Gentlemen, the MDC agreed to form this inclusive Government as it represented the most practical means of moving Zimbabwe forward and halt the needless suffering of the people.

In undertaking this task I have been humbled and encouraged by the commitment of all members of the MDC's leadership, both within and outside of Government and I believe we are truly embodying the principles of a Party of Excellence.

I therefore wish to thank those Ministers and Deputy Ministers who are returning to the Party for their commitment and hard work and I call upon those remaining in the Government and our new Ministers and Deputy Ministers to join me in redoubling our efforts to deliver real change to the people of Zimbabwe.

Thank you.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.

No compromise reached on indigenization law between Zimbabwean gov't and mining sector

07:55, June 23, 2010
Zimbabwe's Youth Development, Indigenization and Empowerment Minister Saviour Kasukuwere on Tuesday denied there was an agreement of compromise between the government and the mining sector on the indigenization law, Xinhua has learnt.

Under the indigenization regulations that came into effect in March this year, foreign owned companies with a net asset value of 500,000 U.S. dollars are required to shed 51 percent of their shareholding to indigenous Zimbabweans within a period of five years.

Companies were initially given 30 days to submit their compliance proposals but the deadline has since been extended twice, with the final deadline now at the end of this month.

The mining sector, largely controlled by foreigners, made a proposal requesting to be exempted from complying with the 51 percent threshold, arguing mining companies should sell at least 15 percent while the remainder will be accounted for by the various social responsibility programs they have undertaken.

Minister Kasukuwere told a press conference there was no such agreement. "I have heard about the proposals but they are just proposals," he said.

"The mining sector to us is where the resources of this country are and it is an area where the companies must be ready to do much more than what they are proposing. We expect much more and we are going to discuss with them, we have not responded yet to their proposal," the minister added.The government has since announced that the indigenization drive will first target the mining sector, the second largest foreign currency earner for the country after agriculture.

The minister said a sectoral committee to look at the specific issues of the mining sector has been set up and it will deal with this issue.

The committee is one of the 14 sub sector specific committees that have been established by the government to make recommendations on sectoral thresholds, time frame and other related issues.

"After that committee has set we will then be able to say where we stand as the government. At the moment they have not agreed with me," he said.

The mining industry, represented by the Chamber of Mines, last month proposed a compromise on the indigenization law, saying the government should recognize that most mining companies built schools and roads that benefit nearby communities.

The chamber said only 15 percent should therefore be in the hands of indigenous Zimbabweans in the mining sector.

"The position which we put together says a minimum of 15 percent equity," the Chamber's president Victor Gapare said.

"The rest to make up 51 percent will be in the form of social responsibility programs like building schools and hospitals."

The indigenization law has drawn mixed reactions from parties in the inclusive government, with President Robert Mugabe's Zanu- PF supporting the law while Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC- T is concerned with how the law will be implemented.

The MDC-T argues that the law should be implemented in a way that does not destroy the economy, indicating fairness and transparency should be guaranteed to ensure broad-based empowerment of the people.

Kasukuwere said while there was discord among the parties in the early days, there is agreement now among the parties on the indigenization law.

"This statement I am making is the position of the entire government of Zimbabwe," he said.

He said Cabinet has also approved some amendments to the indigenization regulations following consultations with stakeholders. Among them is the change of the term "cede" to "dispose" and the inclusion of community share ownership trusts to enable community participation in the economy. Kasukuwere said the term "cede' was one of the key concerns of stakeholders who felt the word implied forced takeover of shares without any compensation.

He said all shares held by foreign-owned companies will be sold, adding the amendments will be legalized on Friday. 

Source: Xinhua

Zimbabwe Minister Backs Down on Business Takeovers

VOA news

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe says his policy of seizing white-owned commercial farms was a quest for 'equity and justice', during speech at UN Food and Agriculture Organization headquarters during a World Summit on Food Security, in Rome (File Photo - 17 Nov 2009)

Zimbabwe Indigenization Minister Saviour Kasukawere says he will publish new laws Friday to replace ones he designed to give 51-percent control of most foreign-owned and Zimbabwe companies to blacks.

The Zimbabwe Indigenization Minister Saviour Kasukawere says indigenous people will have to buy their way into companies and each sector will have different margins of black involvement.

In February, he said any company worth more than $500,000 would have to give 51-percent shareholding to blacks. Some businesses, such as hairdressing would be reserved for blacks only.

The new laws sparked an outcry from the other partner in the unity government, the Movement for Democratic Change, local businessmen, and potential foreign investors. Kasukawere's colleagues in the unity government Cabinet said he had made the new laws without consultation and they went back to the drawing board.

The revised laws would insist new black shareholders buy their way into companies and the percentage they will be able to buy will be different in each sector. Sectoral committees would be formed to decide the percentage.

Zimbabwe's Chamber of Mines has proposed a minimum 15 percent shareholding for locals.

It will still be the first law in Zimbabwe that insists blacks must have significant shareholdings in all companies. Most of the large mining companies, particularly platinum producers are owned by South Africans.

Kasukawere says more than 500 companies have submitted indigenization plans. Economists point out there are very few white Zimbabwean businessmen left in the country and the industrial sector has shrunk by about 60 percent in the past 10 years.

One international miner in Johannesburg, who asked not to be identified, said even with new, more relaxed indigenization laws few want to invest in Zimbabwe because the country is still politically unstable.

Zimbabwe's inflation rate, which set records in 2008, dropped to zero after the U.S. dollar replaced the worthless Zimbabwe currency when the inclusive government was sworn into power in February 2009. Last week statistics produced by the government indicate that inflation has risen to six percent.

Zimbabwe has more than 80-percent unemployment, continues to import food, and depends heavily on Western donors for humanitarian aid.

Zimbabwe Soccer Fans Disappointed at African Team Showings in World Cup

VOA news

UK-based soccer fan Tapiwa Barwe said many fans were surprised to see the US topping Group C and presenting a major challenge to England

The United States advanced to the knockout round of the World Cup of soccer in South Africa after defeating Algeria 1-0 in a thrilling final group match in Pretoria as striker Landon Donovan blasted an overtime rebound into the net.

England also moved into the next round as Algeria and Slovenia were eliminated.

British soccer fans were divided over their team’s qualification, some saying they are not convinced England will get to the finals. U.K.-based soccer fan Tapiwa Barwe told VOA Studio 7 reporter Marvellous Mhlanga-Nyahuye that many were surprised to see the U.S. topping Group C and presenting a major challenge to England.

Zimbabwe soccer fans have largely given up on African teams as World Cup contenders, shifting their support to other continents and nations, as VOA Studio 7 sports correspondent Michael Kariati reported from Harare.

Zimbabwe Warriors player David Kutyauripo said he was saddened to see another African team eliminated following Algeria's relegation at the hands of the United States.

Zimbabwe Constitutional Outreach Program Delayed Further Amid Disorganization

VOA news

Sources in Midlands province said teams there could not hold consultation meetings because they were still waiting for equipment such as cameras and recorders, and the same happened in Mashonaland West

Organizational and logistical problems dogged Zimbabwe's national constitutional outreach process Wednesday with outreach team members sitting in Harare and Bulawayo waiting to deploy but lacking the means to do so.

Sources in Midlands province said teams there could not hold consultation meetings because they were still waiting for equipment such as cameras and recorders. The same happened in Mashonaland West where the team spent the day doing nothing for lack of equipment. Members of the public who were bussed from outlying areas to Chinhoyi were stranded in the provincial capital waiting for the process to begin, sources said.

In southeastern Masvingo province members of Parliament were threatening to abandon the process in protest of the organizational chaos.

Midlands outreach team leader Amos Chibaya of the Movement for Democratic Change formation headed by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai told VOA Studio 7 reporter Jonga Kandemiiri that his team spent today completing the accreditation of team members.

In the western region of Matabeleland, Believe Gaule, a deputy co-chairman of Parliament's select committee on constitutional revision in charge of Bulawayo and Matabeleland North said induction of members was completed on Wednesday, but that his teams were unlikely to start holding meetings until the end of the week.

An official with the select committee said the problems plaguing the outreach process have  been caused by delays in the release of funds by donors. Committee Deputy Chairwoman Gladys Gombani Dube told VOA Studio 7 reporter Patience Rusere that the problems should be sorted out by Thursday.

The outreach team scheduled to leave for Mashonaland Central on Wednesday was stuck at a hotel in Harare because members had not received travel allowances, reported correspondent Sylvia Manika.

The National Constitutional Assembly, a critic of the parliamentary led constitutional revision process, said it was pushing on with its "take charge” campaign opposing the official process.

NCA Director Earnest Mudzengi said the poor circulation of public information on the process reflected the desire by politicians in charge of the process to exclude the views of the people.

John Howard - met with Zimbabwe cricket bosses

Sportinglife.com

HOWARD MEETS WITH ZIMBABWE CRICKET

A meeting between John Howard and Zimbabwe Cricket officials was described as 'friendly, constructive and frank' as the former Australian prime minister fights to strengthen his nomination for the presidency of the International Cricket Council.

Cricket Australia chairman Jack Clarke and Howard secretly flew to Zimbabwe this week to meet with Zimbabwe Cricket chairman Peter Chingoka and managing director Ozias Byute.

Zimbabwe and South Africa have so far refused to back CA's nomination of Howard, who hopes to become ICC vice-president at the governing body's annual meeting in Singapore next week and president in two years time.

In a ZC press release, Byute said: "I am confident that each party leaves this meeting with a better understanding of the other."

It also said the meeting had been 'friendly, constructive and frank'.

ZC has so far opposed Howard because of his criticism of president Robert Mugabe during his prime ministership. This included stopping the Australian cricket team from touring Zimbabwe in 2007.

Just how 'frank' the meeting in Harare on Wednesday was remains unclear, although it appears Zimbabwe's bid to regain Test status was on the agenda.

Zimbabwe sports minister David Coltart was in Melbourne last week and met with CA officials about the issue.

In the ZC statement on Wednesday, Howard said: "My personal wish is to see Zimbabwe full re-integrated into the world cricket family and see the sport continue to grow in all parts of the world, including Zimbabwe."

What Howard will hope is that ZC and South Africa have not garnered the support of other nations.

India remains a major key to Howard's fate for its vote will likely sway fellow Asian bloc countries, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Howard needs the support of seven of the 10 Test-playing nations to claim the role.

If Howard, the joint nominee between CA and New Zealand Cricket, is rejected next week, the ICC will plummet into crisis as its constitution stipulates the presidency must emerge from a regional rotation system, and it is now Australasia's turn.