June 2, 2003
Open letter forum
In a just society, the laws reflect the course of natural justice; they are, in a word, just laws. What then gives a law legitimacy, what makes a law "legal"? This is not just a rhetorical question for students of law, in our present circumstances it is of vital importance to every person in the country.
A law needs traceable authority; it must be issued on behalf of some person whose authority is recognised by the people to whom that law applies. In modern society, all laws derive their authority and legitimacy from the majority of the people through their representation in parliament. A law can only be legitimate if the body making the law is in itself recognised as being legitimate.
As well as traceable authority, a law must be in accordance with natural justice for it to be legitimate and just. That is to say, a law passed by a genuine majority may be illegitimate if it discriminates against any minority, or unjustly deprives citizens of their property or freedom.
Axiomatically, an unjust law cannot be considered legal under any circumstances.
Because of the contentious nature of the last general election in Zimbabwe, no law passed by parliament since that time has any legitimacy. Similarly, no presidential edicts or appointments can be considered to be legitimate, or to have legal force, since the most recent presidential election.
Within Zimbabwe, we have to accede to these "illegal laws" because of force of arms, though naturally these illegal laws can be challenged in court. A problem here is that the legal standing and impartiality of these very courts is under serious question.
We know very well that we do not live under the rule of law in Zimbabwe, but what is the situation where contracts and commitments are made by the present government? In any nation, governments undertake obligations "in the name of the people." When legitimate governments change after an election, the incoming administration is bound to honour obligations and contracts entered into by the previous administration. If this were not so, there would international chaos.
Zimbabwe's problems become serious when we consider the international acceptance, or otherwise, of the legitimacy of parliament and the president. We know that the U.S.A., EU, Britain, and most of the Commonwealth do not recognise the administration as legitimate. By direct inference then, an illegitimate administration cannot promulgate legitimate laws, and cannot enter into binding contracts "on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe."
This poses a very serious problem for countries presently trading with Zimbabwe. An incoming administration that is legitimately elected and internationally accepted will in no way be bound to honour commitments made by the present illegitimate regime. These present commitments are in the nature of purchases made using a stolen chequebook, and as such are not legally binding obligations. Most especially so as the theft of the chequebook has been made widely known.
Caveat emptor (buyer beware!) is the name of the game, and countries such as Libya and South Africa should be aware of this. In my opinion, a legitimate incoming government should repudiate these commitments, because the nation will need every penny for reconstruction after the devastation and looting of national assets that has taken place. It is also my opinion that the debts incurred by the present administration since the general election should be regarded as personal liabilities, for which the individual members of the administration are jointly and severally liable.
Charles Frizell
Many thanks and congratulations on a marvellous job of work for poor out of pocket farmers. I still feel that there is a way forward by using the farmers that are still on the land, the legit ones, or the ones who have been served a section 8, but are still hanging on, who I have warned, that is some of them, to put you fully into the picture as to what they are doing before they get branded as collaborators. I have said if they are helping settlers on their own farms, it is a different matter to doing land prep on other farms, and that they may be open to prosecution at a later stage, but I feel that these chaps could be used to farm the irrigation sections on other farms with a lease from the title holder. This could give the titleholder something to live on, as well as help feed the nation, something along these lines I feel sure could help our cause.
Once again keep up the good work and my grateful congratulations,
Regards Ben Norton
LAW (AGAIN)
What lends legitimacy to a law? Firstly that the body promulgating the law is itself considered legitimate. I am sure that the primary reason for the desire to officially lift sanctions on Iraq, and recognise the occupying force as the interim government, is to give international legal legitimacy to contracts, purchases, and sales in the name of the people of Iraq.
It would be a "good thing" if the United Nations would issue a statement that no contracts with the illegitimate government in Zimbabwe would be considered legally binding. If the UN cannot do that, then a firm statement by the EU, Britain and U.S.A. to that effect would have almost equal effect.
The seizure of private property, under the guise of clearly illegal laws, amounts to theft. The fact that these laws have been bruited about as purely racist, even though people of all races have suffered, adds to their illegitimacy. Any produce sold by people not owning the title deeds to property is clearly stolen property, and the buying of known stolen property is illegal everywhere in the world. Under law, it is usually accepted that the true owner of stolen goods can reclaim them, and the buyer forfeits any money paid. Also, the legal owners have the right to reclaim their property when circumstances make this possible.
Our own courts may be severely compromised, but to me it is very clear that all the so-called laws promulgated by the current regime have no legal standing, and will be declared invalid as soon as a legitimate government is restored.
No wonder Mugabe and ZPF are so desperate to be recognised as legitimate, and why they are so worried! Without free and fair elections accepted by all, there is no hope of that occurring, and they know full well that they don't stand a snowball's hope in hell of winning a fair election.
Charles Frizell
All letters published on the open Letter Forum are the views and opinions of the submitters, and do not represent the official viewpoint of Justice for Agriculture.