Harare, Zimbabwe – More than two decades after Zimbabwe seized thousands of mainly white-owned commercial farms, some of those properties are set to change hands again.
But President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government insisted the move is not a reversal of the land redistribution programme that reshaped Zimbabwe’s countryside after ۲۰۰۰.
Instead, officials said they are resolving three separate categories of land claims involving foreign investors, Black Zimbabwean owners and white farmers who remained on acquired land.
Sixty-seven farms protected by bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements (BIPPAs) are being returned to investors from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Another ۸۴۰ farms that officials said were included in the acquisition process in error during land reform are to be restored to their Black Zimbabwean owners.
And ۴۰۹ white farmers who have remained on farms alongside land reform beneficiaries will be allowed to buy the farms or portions they occupy through a set-off mechanism linked to compensation for eligible improvements.
“The BIPPA process is about resolving outstanding legal obligations relating to investments protected under bilateral agreements. It should not be mistaken for a return to the pre-land reform era,” Agriculture Minister Anxious Masuka told Parliament.
The distinction matters because land remains one of Zimbabwe’s most politically charged issues, closely tied to the colonial era and the liberation struggle.
A colonial legacy
At independence in ۱۹۸۰, white commercial farmers controlled a disproportionate share of Zimbabwe’s most productive farmland, reflecting colonial policies that restricted Black Zimbabweans’ access to prime agricultural land.
Under the Lancaster House settlement, redistribution initially operated largely on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis with Britain helping finance parts of the early programme.
But redistribution was slower than many Black Zimbabweans expected.
In February ۲۰۰۰, voters rejected a government-backed constitutional referendum that would have expanded the state’s powers to acquire land. Soon afterwards, war veterans and supporters of the ZANU-PF party, which has governed Zimbabwe since independence, began occupying white-owned farms.
The government formalised the occupations through the Fast-Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP).
Supporters saw the seizures as the unfinished business of independence. Human Rights Watch documented violence, intimidation and political discrimination during the process while disputes over ownership and allocation continued for years.
The upheaval severely disrupted commercial agriculture and contributed to Zimbabwe’s wider economic crisis, which had multiple causes, including monetary and fiscal problems, drought and other policy failures.
More than two decades later, Zimbabwe is still grappling with the competing claims that upheaval created.
Three categories
The policy distinguishes between three categories of claimants, each with a different legal and political basis.
The ۶۷ BIPPA-protected farms involve foreign investors whose investments were covered by bilateral agreements. Officials said the properties were designated for compulsory acquisition during land reform but remained unoccupied and are being returned to investors as Zimbabwe addresses its obligations under those agreements.
The second group is ۸۴۰ farms that officials said were included in the acquisition process in error during land reform. They are to be restored to their Black Zimbabwean owners.
The third comprises ۴۰۹ white farmers who have remained on farms alongside land reform beneficiaries. They will be allowed to buy the farms or portions they currently occupy rather than simply receiving them back.
Taken together, the three categories illustrate how Zimbabwe’s land question has become increasingly complex with competing claims rooted in different legal, political and historical foundations.
‘We could have done it better’
Milton Gurajena, a war veteran who participated in the farm occupations, remembered them as a national mobilisation.
“We just went into the farms, guided by the national fever. It was just arriving at the farm and giving the owner little notice. Our aim was to take our land back. Oftentimes, the big guys would take it from us and advise us to find another farm,” he said.
But he acknowledged that many participants did not understand the legal consequences.
“We did not have much knowledge except party directives and the common line that ‘we are taking our land back.’ Of course, we had some grievances, but when I look back, we could have done it better and more orderly without turning the process into a war,” he said.
His account reflects the central tension of the land reform: A programme intended to correct a historical injustice was itself marked by violence, political pressure and legal uncertainty.
Investment pressure
For Mnangagwa’s government, the land decisions are not only about resolving historical disputes; they are also part of a broader effort to rebuild relations with Western governments and international lenders.
Zimbabwe is seeking debt relief, renewed access to international financing and improved investor confidence. Analysts have linked the return of the BIPPA-protected farms to those broader efforts to improve the country’s investment climate and relations with international creditors.
The BIPPA process is separate from Zimbabwe’s $۳.۵bn compensation framework for eligible former commercial farmers, agreed in ۲۰۲۰. That programme covers improvements made to farms acquired by the state while ownership of the land remains with the state.
Zimbabwe began making payments under that framework in ۲۰۲۵, but the government has faced financial constraints in meeting the wider commitment.
At the same time, the government said it is issuing title deeds to farmers who benefitted from land reform, seeking to give them greater security of tenure and encourage investment. Officials insisted that land reform itself remains irreversible.
A return to the farm
For some former owners, the latest moves have revived hopes of regaining access to properties they lost more than two decades ago.
Michael Kwaramba, a second-generation heir to his family’s estate, said his father suffered after the farm was mistakenly designated for compulsory acquisition by the state during land reform.
“He went through a lot when our farm was wrongly gazetted, which I think contributed to his untimely death. We have been waiting for years, and the announcement is encouraging,” he said.
Willem Jansen, a Dutch-born Zimbabwean farmer now based in South Africa, also hopes to regain his family’s farm.
“Hopefully, I will get my land back. It was our family land, and we had created an ecosystem that even after our forced removal, farm workers and nearby villages were affected, lost jobs and opportunities we were creating together,” he said.
But for those who fought for land reform, the prospect of former owners regaining a foothold on the land remains difficult.
Marko Dzingirai, a war veteran, said he was unsure what the changes would mean for farmers who settled on land after the reform.
“Just like in the beginning when we invaded the farms, we did not know about the existence of all these treaties and agreements on the farms. So now, I don’t know if the farm here is part of the BIPPA or not,” he said.
“We supported the party because of moves like these. Hopefully, they are not betraying our sacrifices,” he said.
