In a recent address at State House, Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa renewed his call for former colonial powers to pay reparations to their ex-colonies, suggesting that such reparations could help fund Zimbabwe’s efforts to compensate white commercial farmers whose lands were seized during the early 2000s land reform program.
The call, however, raises critical questions about the president’s priorities and the selective way he frames Zimbabwe’s historical grievances.
The appeal for colonial reparations can indeed strike a sympathetic chord, as few would deny the violence, exploitation, and trauma of colonial rule.
Yet Mnangagwa’s stance presents a significant contradiction.
His administration demands reparations from external powers while neglecting accountability for equally traumatic events within Zimbabwe itself-namely, the Gukurahundi massacres of the early 1980s, in which over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking Zimbabweans were killed by government forces.
For true justice to prevail, Mnangagwa must prioritize reparations for Gukurahundi victims before seeking reparations from former colonial rulers.
This article explores why domestic accountability is essential for meaningful justice and critiques the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of Mnangagwa’s recent statements.
Examining Mnangagwa’s Call for Colonial Reparations
At face value, Mnangagwa’s appeal for reparations from former colonial rulers seems straightforward, reflecting a common sentiment across Africa.
He argues that these reparations would address past wrongs, support Zimbabwe’s economy, and aid the government in compensating dispossessed white farmers whose lands were seized during land reforms.
Yet, behind the rhetoric lies a troubling inconsistency.
Mnangagwa’s government continues to sidestep accountability for Gukurahundi, a tragedy that occurred under his direct political watch as the State Security Minister.
Why does Mnangagwa prioritize colonial grievances while refusing to compensate his own citizens for Gukurahundi?
Why is he more concerned with securing reparations to address harms inflicted generations ago, while ignoring the more recent suffering of the Ndebele-speaking community?
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
By avoiding an apology or reparations for Gukurahundi, Mnangagwa reveals a selective concern for justice, one that seeks legitimacy abroad while neglecting the demands of those at home.
Revisiting Key Points on Colonial Reparations
While colonialism left lasting scars on Zimbabwe, it is critical to examine the broader context in which calls for reparations are made.
Reparation demands can overlook complex historical truths, especially regarding how power dynamics operated globally—including in Europe and Africa.
Historical Context of Reparations
The experience of colonization is not unique to African nations.
European countries, too, have histories of conquest and occupation.
For example, Ireland endured British rule for centuries, resulting in significant cultural, economic, and political suppression.
Poland was partitioned and controlled by surrounding empires, and Hungary faced the same under the Ottoman Empire.
Even Britain itself was once under Roman rule, an occupation that left lasting imprints on its society and landscape.
Yet, despite these experiences, none of these European nations have demanded reparations for these historical occupations.
They chose, instead, to focus on self-reconstruction and progress—a path that Mnangagwa’s administration could consider, rather than depending on reparations as the primary means for addressing past grievances.
African Kingdoms and Colonial Occupation
African kingdoms were also involved in expansionist practices, employing similar strategies of territorial conquest and control seen in European colonialism.
The Mutapa, Rozvi, Ndebele, and Zulu empires became powerful precisely because they engaged in their own forms of colonialism, expanding through invasions of smaller, weaker states.
These kingdoms’ histories reveal that African imperial power dynamics were complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to separate “colonizers” from “colonized” in simple terms.
Moreover, the Mutapa Kingdom, under its Munhumutapa kings, was involved in the transatlantic slave trade as early as the 16th century, capturing and selling people to Portuguese traders.
This history illustrates that indigenous African powers also engaged in forms of exploitation and human trafficking, blurring the lines between oppressor and oppressed.
By highlighting these nuances, it becomes apparent that reparations, while symbolically valuable, should not be sought under a one-sided or idealized vision of African history.
Britain’s Withdrawal of Land Reform Funding
Mnangagwa’s assertion that reparations from colonial powers would enable Zimbabwe to compensate white farmers glosses over the fact that Zimbabwe had once received financial commitments for land reform under the Lancaster House Agreement.
Initially, Britain had agreed to fund Zimbabwe’s land redistribution through a “willing buyer, willing seller” framework, but this commitment faltered after reports of financial mismanagement.
In a pivotal 1997 letter to Zimbabwe’s then Agriculture Minister, Kumbirai Kangai, UK Development Secretary Claire Short cited misuse of funds and lack of transparency as Britain’s reasons for ceasing land reform funding.
Short’s letter indicated that the money meant for equitable land redistribution for the benefit of poor black farmers often ended up in the hands of senior government officials, military commanders, and business elites who were close to Robert Mugabe’s government.
This led to widespread disillusionment among ordinary Zimbabweans, many of whom had supported the independence struggle in the hope that they would finally gain access to land.
Britain, through its Department for International Development (DFID), contributed tens of millions of pounds to support land reform from 1980 to the mid-1990s.
However, reports of elite capture and diversion of funds began to surface, suggesting that large portions of these funds were not reaching the intended beneficiaries.
According to some estimates, of the £44 million that Britain initially set aside for land reform under the “willing buyer, willing seller” model, only a fraction was actually used to purchase land for the landless poor.
The remainder was allegedly diverted for supposed “administrative costs” and other purposes unrelated to land redistribution.
Throughout the 1990s, it became evident that land reform was being captured by political elites rather than benefiting the intended rural poor.
A 1994 government audit found that 5 million hectares of land purchased with British funds for redistribution ended up in the hands of senior politicians, government ministers, military officers, and their families.
By failing to acknowledge this part of the narrative, Mnangagwa’s call for reparations lacks accountability for Zimbabwe’s internal missteps and frames colonial reparations as a panacea for current government failures.
Contradictions in Reparations for White Farmers
The proposal to use reparations to compensate white farmers dispossessed during land reforms presents an internal contradiction within Zimbabwe’s official narrative.
The land reform program was publicly justified as an effort to correct historical injustices, redistributing land from white settlers to black Zimbabweans.
Yet, by positioning colonial reparations as a means to compensate these same farmers, Mnangagwa undermines the ideological foundation of the land reform movement.
If the goal of land reform was to redress colonial wrongs, why does the government now seek reparations to compensate those who previously benefitted from colonialism?
Mnangagwa’s proposal reflects a lack of coherence in policy, revealing a willingness to use the colonial reparation narrative to serve whichever political ends suit his administration.
This paradox suggests that the call for reparations is less about genuine justice and more about political maneuvering.
The Gukurahundi Massacres: The Unaddressed Wound
Between 1983 and 1987, the Gukurahundi massacres resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 Ndebele-speaking Zimbabweans.
The massacres, perpetrated by the Fifth Brigade, were state-sanctioned atrocities that targeted civilians in a systematic campaign of terror.
To this day, the Zimbabwean government has not issued a formal apology or offered reparations to the survivors or families of the victims.
Lack of Accountability
Mnangagwa’s silence on Gukurahundi is deafening, particularly as he now calls for reparations for colonial injustices.
His reluctance to address Gukurahundi reveals a profound moral inconsistency, suggesting that only certain historical grievances are worthy of redress.
While Zimbabweans are asked to look to foreign powers for reparations, the government refuses to acknowledge or compensate its own citizens for state-led atrocities.
This selective pursuit of justice is an affront to the families and survivors of Gukurahundi, who continue to seek recognition and reparation for their suffering.
The Moral Hypocrisy
Mnangagwa’s call for colonial reparations, juxtaposed with his silence on Gukurahundi, exposes a hypocrisy at the heart of his administration.
It is unconscionable to demand justice for harms inflicted by foreign powers while refusing to address equally severe harms committed by one’s own government.
True justice begins at home, and until Zimbabwe’s leadership acknowledges and atones for Gukurahundi, calls for colonial reparations will lack credibility.
The Path Forward: Prioritizing Justice at Home
Before Zimbabwe can credibly demand reparations from former colonial powers, it must demonstrate a commitment to addressing its own injustices.
Compensating Gukurahundi survivors and issuing a formal apology would signal a genuine dedication to justice, setting an example of internal accountability that would strengthen Zimbabwe’s case for external reparations.
Reconciliation and Healing
By addressing Gukurahundi, Zimbabwe could begin to heal from its own historical wounds, fostering a culture of reconciliation and transparency.
This process would benefit not only Gukurahundi survivors but all Zimbabweans, building a stronger, more unified society that values justice as a foundational principle.
Conclusion
President Mnangagwa’s call for colonial reparations is, on the surface, a powerful demand for historical justice.
Yet, without addressing domestic injustices like Gukurahundi, this demand lacks authenticity.
Justice can not be a selective endeavor, confined to grievances against foreign powers while ignoring those harmed by one’s own government.
If Mnangagwa is sincere about reparations, he should begin with Gukurahundi, prioritizing the reparations owed to Zimbabweans before seeking redress from former colonial powers.
Only by addressing these internal injustices can Zimbabwe present a united and credible front in the pursuit of historical justice on the international stage.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
