From The Guardian (UK), 28 September

Commonwealth deal fails to halt farm invasions

Harare - More than 20 fresh farm invasions have taken place in Zimbabwe in the three weeks since a Nigerian-brokered agreement was supposed to have put an end to the illegal land seizures by supporters of President Robert Mugabe. Violence or threats of violence have halted farming operations on more than 900 farms, according to the Commercial Farmers' Union which represents the country's white farmers. It says that the work stoppages will exacerbate Zimbabwe's food shortages. With the collapse of talks between Mr Mugabe's government and the farmers this week, the Commonwealth agreement thrashed out in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, was "a dead letter", a political analyst, Masipula Sithole, said. "Mugabe is flouting it shamelessly and has no intention of keeping up his side of the bargain," he said. "He is challenging the Commonwealth to do something about it...to hold him to his promises to uphold good governance, the rule of law and human rights."

The Abuja agreement called for Mr Mugabe to stop his followers from illegally invading farms and spreading political violence. In return for the restoration of the rule of law, the British government said it would provide substantial funds for land redistribution. The farmers' union had welcomed the agreement but is now frustrated following the collapse on Wednesday of talks with the government about the implementation of the accord's principles, such as an end to violence and the removal of the invaders from farms not officially designated for seizure. The justice minister, Patrick Chinamasa, was "intractable" on the issues and said the government had no intention of taking steps to implement the agreement, sources close to the talks said. Zimbabwe's supreme court adjourned on Wednesday after hearing government arguments that the court should overturn an earlier decision that ordered a halt to all compulsory farm seizures until a plan for orderly land redistribution was produced. A "new look" supreme court is considering the case, with a new chief justice and three new judges, all of whom are known to be ardent supporters of Mr Mugabe. Two of the judges have been named as leasing valuable state land originally acquired for the resettlement of poor black peasants.

Neither Mr Mugabe nor any other cabinet minister has publicly urged a halt to the violence or farm invasions. The government maintains that it has always followed the rule of law and does not need to change its policies to abide by the Abuja accord. The information minister, Jonathan Moyo, said on television this week that there was "no such condition in the agreement". The foreign minister, Stan Mudenge, told MPs last week that as soon as Britain provided funds for the purchase of farms, the violence would stop of its own accord. "That was not the agreement reached in Abuja," a Commonwealth diplomat who was present at those talks said. "The Mugabe government was told in no uncertain terms that things must change, and that it must stop illegal farm invasions and political violence. We do not see any movement towards that on the ground." In last weekend's Chikomba by-election, a school headmaster who had been accused of supporting the opposition Movement for Democratic Change was beaten to death, and scores of others were beaten and tortured, according to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum.

Comment from The Insider (Zimb), 27 September

Too Much Ado About Abuja

Bulawayo - The Abuja Agreement, under which the Zimbabwe government is reported to have agreed to end all illegal occupations of white-owned farms and return the country to the rule of law in return for financial assistance mainly from the United Kingdom, is unlikely to get off the ground unless the ruling Zanu PF wants to commit political suicide. Although the ruling party's supreme policy making body, the politburo, has endorsed the agreement, observers say Zanu PF could just be buying time to let things cool off as it has been under intense pressure. It only received temporary relief when world attention was swayed to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the United States.

According to the agreement, although land was at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe, it could not be separated from other issues such as the rule of law, respect for human rights, democracy and the economy. Land reform had therefore to be implemented in a fair and sustainable way, in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe. Orderly implementation of land reform could only be meaningful and sustainable if it was carried out with due regard to human rights, the rule of law, transparency and democratic principles. The Zimbabwean government agreed that there would be no further occupation of farms. It also said it was going to speed up the de-listing of farms that did not meet the criteria for land reform and to move occupiers from farms that are not designated. It also said it was committed to the return of the rule of law and freedom of expression. But perhaps the most important reason both parties were interested in signing the deal was the need to avoid a division within the Commonwealth, especially at its heads of government meeting in Brisbane, Australia.

Before the agreement there was pressure to bar Mugabe from attending the summit in Australia. He can safely go now and perhaps renege on the agreement on his return. One political observer said the Abuja Agreement was a major coup for Mugabe because it gave him time while it gave farmers false hope that they could be compensated. The agreement is full of loopholes which Mugabe could exploit to back out. He can argue, as he has done in the past, that there is rule of law in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has a law which says it is entitled to take over white farms without compensation. It does not need to move out any occupiers because almost all farms have been designated. Besides, there is a law that bars anyone from moving occupiers from land they would have occupied. By moving them out, Zimbabwe would be breaking its own laws. All the other reasons fall away as Zimbabwe is already claiming that it is a democratic country and the ruling Zanu PF brought democracy to this country so no one can preach to it about democracy.