An in-depth Study on the impacts of Operation Murambatsvina 4.3: Legal Issues As noted earlier, the issue of the infringements of people’s legal rights has provoked considerable discussion. The Zimbabwe Government has continuously argued that Operation Murambatsvina was an action to contain illegal dwellings and illegal trading in order to contain crimes and criminal activities. This was doubted by the UN Special Envoy, and other authorities, who have all pointed out that the resort to the informal sector as a means of livelihood is common throughout Africa and much of the under-developed world: where the formal economy is unable to provide jobs and livelihoods, then it is logical and generally encouraged that citizens find other ways of providing for themselves and their families. Similarly, as regards housing, it is common for people in situations of scarce urban housing to find more informal modes of accommodation. This may lead to the development of shanty-towns, but, in Zimbabwe’s case, and based on the Zimbabwe Government’s own data, this was not a serious problem in Zimbabwe. As UNHABITAT has estimated, in 2003 Zimbabwe had a slum population of about 157,000 [3.4% of the total population], which is relatively low in the context of the African continentxlii. Thus, it was of interest to examine the extent to which Zimbabwean citizens had some legal right to housing, trade and other legal rights, either formally granted or informally encouraged by the Government. This is especially so in the light of court decisions indicating that the evictions, demolitions, and arrests were outside the powers of the police. As can be seen from Table 13 below, our data strongly endorses the views of UNHABITAT: it does not suggest a large population of slum-dwellers, but rather a population of substantial citizens. A majority was paying rates, and a majority of these had some form of authorization for their occupancy. It is common cause that the Zimbabwe Government, politicians, and Councils have supported land occupancy, and not only in the rural areas. It has been almost a litany since 2000 that lack of land has been at the base of Zimbabwe’s problems. Table 13: Effects on property Had building destroyed Paying rates Not authorized Council Authorized by: Government Politician Housing co-operative Households that had lease agreements Leases in their own name Relative Leases in Friend another name: Landlord Co-operative Property registered with a council Proportion [%] 58% 76% 36% 39% 8% 10% 7% 34% 31% 22% 5% 56% 17% 43% 23 The effects on people’s livelihoods were equally dramatic. As can be seen from Table 14 below, a sizeable majority reported that the Operation had affected their livelihoods, with significant percentages reporting being registered and paying rates. As can also be seen, a large number reported being assaulted whilst in police custody, and the degree to which the statutory maximum