ParapindaParapinda

@mawarirej It is not true that Constitutions are perfect. Even the drafters leave room for amendment, knowing that ambiguity may arise in interpretation. The Land Commission Act , which was enacted after the 2013 Constitution, answers s293(3), in my view. The preamble is very clear.

Mhofu, constitutions are written following the principle of non-ambiguity. Constitution making requires that constitutional provisions be drafted clearly and precisely to avoid confusion, ensure consistent interpretation, and establish the supremacy of the constitution over conflicting laws and actions by the government. Constitutional provisions should not be ambiguous. They shouldn't have varying interpretations. If there is any constitutional provision whose interpretation has "two sides" as you are arguing, then your job as a law maker arises. Take it to parliament, push for an amendment to remove the ambiguity. But as it stands, section 293 (3) is not ambiguous. It demands that any alienation and allocation of agricultural land by the state should be preceded by the enactment of an act of parliament. That was not done in the case of the Tagwirei fake title deeds. There is no reading of the law that says what Tagwirei is doing shouldn't be preceded by parliament passing an ACT to enable the state to transfer land to individuals. If it is there, show us. You guys are complicit to the looting going on. If you are not, stop it!

@matigary Tsitsitsitsi.

@igweeboss @RexMidzi @ProfJNMoyo Exactly. Very unfortunate.

@igweeboss @RexMidzi @ProfJNMoyo The Constitution is clear on how previous title deeds were cancelled. I don believe there are any major loopholes save for our partisan approach to the whole saga. Compensation is for developments on the land, which we all agreed to be part of the supreme law.

Politics aside & an un adultererated interpretation of the law i agree with @ProfJNMoyo s 72, 289 & 293 State can alienate land ( read with LCA ) including transfer of ownership by the State The L C A (s17 & 23) empowers leases, sales & deeds 🤷🏾‍♂️ Nothing hinders private title

@RexMidzi @ProfJNMoyo Agreed. The State as the bonafide owner of land cannot be barred from distributing it to deserving beneficiaries. It will be an absurdity to say the State can only hold land but NOT give it to the people. That could not have been the intention of the lawmaker.

@ProfJNMoyo Well articulated.

Private Ownership of Agricultural Land Through the Government's 'Title Redistribution' Initiative Is Constitutional A troubling trend in Zimbabwean politics is the deepening tendency of some opinion makers—across the political spectrum—to assert conclusions without substantiating them. Typically, they rely on their perceived authority or self-importance, rather than building persuasive arguments. This approach undermines public discourse. Globally, effective opinion leaders convince audiences and policymakers by presenting reasoned analyses, supported by evidence, allowing audiences to evaluate the logic and facts, to draw their own independent conclusions. What matters most is not the conclusion itself, but the arguments, analysis, and information provided to support it. In essence, arguments grounded in analysis are informative and valuable, while those based solely on mere assertions and conclusions amount to empty pontification. A stark example of this "argument by conclusion" syndrome is the claim that "[the] Constitution as it currently stands does not allow for private ownership of agricultural land. Sections 72(4) and (5) of the Constitution expressly provide that all title deeds that existed in respect of agricultural land were cancelled and all agricultural land is now owned by the State. The Constitution does not allow for private ownership or the granting of title deeds in respect of such land." This unsubstantiated assertion was made in response to the government's ongoing initiative to issue title deeds for redistributed agricultural land. On Monday, President Emmerson Mnangagwa officiated the granting of titles to around 1,000 A1 farmers—many of them veterans of the liberation war—in Mazowe. This effort is led by the Land Tenure Technical Committee, chaired by Cde Kudakwashe Tagwirei. The unsubstantiated claim appeared in a widely shared X post by @advocatemahere, which for full context, the post reads: "Why is Govt dishing out monopoly title deeds? The Constitution as it currently stands does not allow for private ownership of agricultural land. Sections 72(4) and 72(5) of the Constitution expressly provide that all title deeds that existed in respect of agricultural land were cancelled and all agricultural land is now owned by the State. The Constitution does not allow for private ownership or the granting of title deeds in respect of such land. In order to lawfully issue title deeds, you will need first to amend the Constitution. This is law 101. Any pieces of paper being touted as title deeds for agricultural land are invalid and of no force or effect. No bank will take them as security and the holders don’t have the power to transfer the land lawfully as is the case with title deeds that are recognized by law. The Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act only allows the State to issue permits, offer letters and leases for agricultural land - not title deeds. Why play such illegal psychological games with the unsuspecting public?" This assertion is unfortunate, as it is misleading, factually incorrect, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution—particularly section 72 (on rights to agricultural land) in the Declaration of Rights (Chapter 4), and Chapter 16 (dedicated to agricultural land), including sections 289, 293, 296, and 297, which directly relate to section 72. Historical Context: Land Reform and the 2013 Constitution To dismiss the government's title deeds programme as unconstitutional ignores Zimbabwe's history. One would have to overlook the Third Chimurenga—the historic land reclamation efforts that restored the land rights of the indigenous population—to suggest that its leaders did not anticipate the need for subsequent agrarian reforms. During the drafting of the 2013 Constitution, especially leading up to the March 2013 referendum, sections 72 and Chapter 16 underwent rigorous scrutiny. Zanu-PF's COPAC structures and Politburo debated these provisions clause by clause over and over again, often late into the night, redrafting them to ensure they balanced historical redress with future flexibility. Key Constitutional Provisions A proper assessment of whether the Constitution permits private ownership or title deeds for agricultural land cannot focus solely on section 72(4) and (5). It must begin with comparing section 72(4) and section 290(1), which are identical: Section 72(4): All agricultural land which— (a) was itemised in Schedule 7 to the former Constitution; or (b) before the effective date, was identified in terms of section 16B(2)(a)(ii) or (iii) of the former Constitution; continues to be vested in the State, and no compensation is payable in respect of its acquisition except for improvements effected on it before its acquisition. Section 290(1): All agricultural land which— (a) was itemised in Schedule 7 to the former Constitution; or (b) before the effective date, was identified in terms of section 16B(2) (a)(ii) or (iii) of the former Constitution; continues to be vested in the State. This duplication is intentional and common in the drafting of constitutions. For example, South Africa's 1996 Constitution repeats property rights provisions in its Bill of Rights and land reform sections to ensure consistency amid historical inequities. In Zimbabwe, the verbatim similarity between sections 72(4) and 290(1) reinforces the irreversibility of past acquisitions, addressing colonial dispossession and the Fast-Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of the early 2000s, while clarifying contexts: rights protection in Chapter 4 versus operational management in Chapter 16. Section 72(4), within the property rights framework (outlined in section 71), limits compensation to improvements and vests land in the State to protect against claims by former (white) owners. This entrenches reforms as a constitutional imperative, aligned with section 289's six principles of equitable access. Notably, section 289(b) states: "subject to section 72, every Zimbabwean citizen has a right to acquire, hold, occupy, use, transfer, hypothecate, lease or dispose of agricultural land regardless of his or her race or colour." Section 290(1), as a transitional provision, ensures State title continuity after August 22, 2013. Subsection (2) addresses inconsistencies in prior notices or deeds, preserving the State's title despite errors. This structure resolves historical tensions—colonial land theft and post-independence reforms—by prioritising redress while enabling stability. Detractors who claim a ban on private ownership misinterpret "vesting" as perpetual State monopoly, ignoring provisions for flexible implementation, such as alienation under section 293. Section 293 states in full: 293 Alienation of agricultural land by State (1) The State may alienate for value any agricultural land vested in it, whether through the transfer of ownership to any other person or through the grant of a lease or other right of occupation or use, but any such alienation must be in accordance with the principles specified in section 289. (2) The State may not alienate more than one piece of agricultural land to the same person and his or her dependants. (3) An Act of Parliament must prescribe procedures for the alienation and allocation of agricultural land by the State, and any such law must be consistent with the principles specified in section 289. Clearly, section 293(1) authorizes the State to alienate vested land "through the transfer of ownership," without needing constitutional amendments. Nothing in section 72(4) or (5) prohibits alienation to Zimbabweans. Section 72(4) affirms ‘State vesting’ post-acquisition, limiting compensation to improvements to prevent FTLRP reversals. Section 72(5) requires registering the State's title and cancelling prior deeds—a procedural step to eliminate competing claims. These secure initial State control but allow subsequent transfers via section 293, subject to legislation and equitable principles. The Land Commission Act [Chapter 20:29], enacted in February 2018 under sections 296 and 297 (which, instructively are in Chapter 16 on agricultural land), operationalizes this. Section 17 of the Act provides: (1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission and with the approval of the President, lease, sell or otherwise dispose of State land for such purposes and subject to such conditions as he or she may determine. (2) Land may be leased or alienated to a single individual, a single corporate body, a single household or to two or more persons jointly. Section 23 adds: "The Minister may, subject to section 17, issue offer letters, leases, deeds of grant and permits in respect of Gazetted or other State land." Thus, sections 289, 290, and 293 (read with section 72) and the Land Commission Act explicitly permit private ownership of gazetted land, including title deeds. This is an open and shut matter. No question about it. Practical Implications Recent initiatives, like the 2024–2025 Presidential Title Deeds Programme, exemplify this by issuing freehold titles to resettled farmers, improving bankability and productivity without violation. The claims of detractors to the contrary stem from equating ‘vesting’ with ‘inalienability’, overlooking the Constitution's clear and holistic design. Zimbabweans are indeed entitled to acquire title deeds to gazetted agricultural land under section 289(b), subject to section 72. Sections 72(4) and (5) vest land initially to extinguish prior claims, constitutionalizing FTLRP outcomes and enabling resettlement without full compensation liability (only for improvements). This "vesting" protects reforms while allowing alienations to promote equity and productivity. Detractors confuse this safeguard with a ban on private ownership of gazetted agricultural land, but the Constitution envisions transfers to citizens—via section 293 and the Land Commission Act—to enhance farmer viability. The program converts leases to titles for A1 and A2 farmers, enabling loans with safeguards (e.g., indigenous-only transfers) to prevent reversal. It aligns with section 289(b)'s race-neutral rights, prioritising Black Zimbabweans to redress historical disparities, without amendments. Sections 72(4) and (5) shield State title from challenges (e.g., the misguided and nefarious 2008 SADC Tribunal ruling) while facilitating redistribution. They are not barriers but foundations for equitable reform, supporting programs like this to boost tenure security and prosperity. Legislation like SI 76 of 2025 (for digital deeds) bolsters legality. No court has invalidated the initiative; ultimately, the law is what courts uphold, not what detractors pontificate.

@TheMirrorMsv Tsitsitsitsi. Vakuru vanoti usatuka mvuvu usati wayambuka rwizi.

Tongai Fambi, an Assistant Police Inspector who resigned from ZRP a few weeks ago and then went on to attack Zanu PF for being hypocritical by donating to the needy in Mozambique when Zimbabweans are starving was evicted out of a Police house at Chikato in Masvingo on Tuesday. The eviction was supervised by a chief superintendent. ZRP policy allows retired officers to remain in Gov houses for 3 months or longer depending on circumstances. Fambi said his family has nowhere to go since his house is occupied by tenants who need proper notice before they move out. @PoliceZimbabwe @Moha_Zim @lawsocietyofzim @ParliamentZim @JSCZim @CCCZimbabwe @ChangeRadioZW @zanupf_patriots @ZanuPFYouthLeag @ZANUPF_Official @DMwonzora @ZLHRLawyers @HumanRihts @zhrc365 @Cde_Ostallos @_AfricanUnion @SADC_News @edmnangagwa @daddyhope @nelsonchamisa @JobSikhala1 @InfoMinZW @ParliamentZim @MoJLPA @Jamwanda2

@Jamwanda2 About time.

ONE BIG STORY THE MEDIA MISSED YESTERDAY: Go back to the video script on the President’s address at yesterday’s PRODUCTIVITY KITS AND TITLE DEEDS ISSUANCE EVENT in Mazowe District. You will hear THE PRESIDENT MOOTING A NEW POLICY ON TOBACCO FINANCING!!! Now, that is a very big POLICY PRONOUNCEMENT marking a shift with far-reaching implications to this ECONOMY. Please media, give that aspect in the President’s speech deserving treatment. The foreign-dominated tobacco funding model we have gone by hitherto has translated into MASSIVE FLIGHT OF EARNINGS from tobacco sales!! This is set to change with this new, localized tobacco financing!!!!!!

@LangaJones 🤣🤣🤣

@PParapinda Abort mission! Keep it in the drafts folder 😭😭!

🤭🫣😂

@LangaJones 🤣🤣🤣...and here I was thinking of scaring a work colleague...is it safe? Can I ask you for assistance later if things go sideways...😁😁

@PParapinda 😂😂 yes, try it! 🤭

@matigary Vonogohwa here...kkkkk

You have been warned

@dabskays Mabaya dede nemukanwa Mhofu. Kungoti Sikhala anongohakira zvese zvese for relevance.

I respectfully disagree that she is a hero, she is basically aligning with one faction of Zanu-PF which is also beholden to the Chinese. Before this, there was an issue raised regarding her association with the Kasukuweres of this world. Unfortunately we are desperate for heroes.

@JobSikhala1 Tsitsitsitsi

She is the heroine of the post independence democratic struggle against all forms of evil and dictatorship. One of the few women who stand her ground for what she has resolved to support. The woman with a strong spine of a lioness. I would like to wholeheartedly thank and honour her for all the sacrifices she is doing for the liberation of our country from the hands of the greed cartels of Zvigananda. She is at war against Zvigananda, and I fully support her to fumigate our country from the contagion of Zvigananda. May God continue to inspire and give you courage to continue fighting @LynneStactia. Don't relent!!!

@ZimDaily On the planet? Take it easy...🤣🤣🤣

Ever wondered why the Republican Party is the most powerful political party on the planet? Wonder no more.…

@ChikomoPrazen Such a pedestrian approach to section 3(2)(a) of the Constitution by Brian, is a huge red flag. The section, if read in context, envisions a political party system and NOT a bambazonke approach just because someone is a baker or student. One must belong to a political party first

I struggle debating with bourgeoise pragmatists like you because you think citing constitutions is the end of reasoning. You hide behind selective constitutional quotations, but let’s strip away the froth. Section 56(3) was never written to sterilize political life or to outlaw political consciousness , it exists to prevent discrimination, not to erase political affiliation. To twist it into a weapon against students and workers organizing along political lines is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Your whole thesis collapses the moment we remember Section 3(2)(a), which enshrines multiparty democracy as a founding principle. How does a multiparty system function without political affiliations? To demand that students, trade unions, and civil society be “non-partisan” is not constitutional fidelity, it is a betrayal of democracy itself. You’re preaching “inclusivity” while cutting out the very marrow of political engagement. And your fantasy parliament of “student reps, bakers, farmers, residents”, let’s be serious. Proportional representation is built on political parties, not hobby clubs. It’s parties that aggregate interest, shape policy, and contest state power. To pretend otherwise is to drag us back, not forward. The 2013 settlement didn’t abolish politics, it entrenched multiparty democracy. So spare us the pompous history lesson. What you’re offering is not constitutional realism but a retreat into sterile technocracy, using “law” as camouflage for cowardice in the face of real politics. The constitution was made to deepen democratic participation, not neuter it. Students and unions stepping into the national question is not “past the period”, it is the lifeblood of democracy. ITS RULE OF LAW NOT RULE BY LAW !!!

@GozhoSimbarashe @tafimhaka Gozho Simbarashe, stop having the brains of a rat.

@PParapinda @tafimhaka You could possibly be one of them ZANU 😈 devils. This coming from you is very well expected, sadly.

April 2000. Macheke. ZANU-PF militia abducted farmer and MDC activist David Stevens. Tied his hands. Shot him. Killed him. Drained his blood. Drank it. ZANU ndeyeropa.

@tafimhaka Agreed. I have no qualms about exposing criminality but we cannot be doing that with blinkered eyes.

@tafimhaka It is always nice when you fail to mention how cruel these farmers were to their employees. There are horrific stories yet to be told. Two wrongs do not make a right but we need to be fair in our narratives unless the motive is to make these white folks angels.

@tafimhaka Take it easy Tafi. You only care about morality when it comes to white farmers? What about your fellow black citizens who suffered under these farmers? Fairness demands a look at both sides of the coin. I do not condone murder but ask for fairness.

@PParapinda You have zero morality - full stop.

@matigary Especially those brainwashed by religion. Hectic

Sorry maningi. Some Africans will drain you