Zanu PF spokesperson, Ambassador Christopher Mutsvangwa, has dismissed comparisons between Zimbabwe’s and South Africa’s land policies, emphasizing that the two countries have distinct historical and legal contexts regarding land reform. He urged opposition figures to desist from misrepresenting Zimbabwe’s situation in an attempt to influence international perceptions and strain relations between Zimbabwe and the United States.
Speaking at a press conference held at the ruling party’s headquarters yesterday, Ambassador Mutsvangwa explained that Zimbabwe’s land question was a colonial legacy directly tied to Britain, while South Africa’s land issue remains an internal matter within that country. He stated that Zimbabwe’s land redistribution arose from historical injustices where the British South Africa (BSA) Company was granted authority to allocate land under colonial rule.
“The South African land question has been treated as an internal matter between South Africans,” he said. “We have a different land problem. Ours was a colonial, imperial land problem. There is a colonizing power which gave a charter to a private company called the British South Africa Company to come to Zimbabwe and start possessing land. So even when we fought, we knew that the legitimacy of this country was impinged upon by Britain. Towards the end of that struggle, when we achieved an armistice, we had to go to London. The land question in Zimbabwe has a colonial imperial nature which resides in London. It is not like the South African issue, which is an internal South African affair, because Afrikaners are Africans, and we consider them as Africans, and they also want to be considered as Africans.”
Ambassador Mutsvangwa expressed concern over attempts by some opposition members to link Zimbabwe’s land policies to developments in South Africa as a means of influencing American foreign policy. He highlighted that such actions often escalate around the time the United States is reviewing its executive sanctions on Zimbabwe.
“This is the nuance that differentiates our land question from that of South Africa,” he said. “Each time there is an issue in Washington about Africa, and the president of America is facing the prospect of having to renew executive sanctions against Zimbabwe around this time of the year, a lot of excitement starts emanating from opposition circles in Zimbabwe.”
He singled out opposition politician Mr. Tendai Biti, accusing him of attempting to manipulate discussions on land and title deeds to gain international attention. Ambassador Mutsvangwa alleged that a recent meeting was convened in South Africa at the United States Embassy, where discussions were held with the intent of drawing American interest into Zimbabwe’s land matters.
“He (Mr. Biti) is now starting to make comments about title deeds, about Zimbabwe,” he said. “Yesterday, we know for certain that they convened a meeting in South Africa at the US Embassy, all in an effort to whip up emotions about title deeds and land in Zimbabwe. Their hope is that somehow, when America makes pronouncements on South Africa, Zimbabwe must also be dragged into the discourse.”
Ambassador Mutsvangwa warned that such maneuvers were aimed at placing Zimbabwe under unnecessary scrutiny and foreign pressure, which he said was being done in a bid to push for political change through external influence rather than democratic processes.
“They just want Zimbabwe to be placed under a yoke. They want Zimbabwe to become the focus of the American president’s attention, gratuitously and unnecessarily,” he said. “Why? Because they believe that if America takes a stance on Zimbabwe, it can speed up their prospects of gaining power through foreign backing rather than through the front door of electoral politics in Zimbabwe.”
His remarks follow the recent decision by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to sign the Land Expropriation Act into law, a move that has drawn regional and international attention.
