However, universally accepted property rights are those that guarantee optimality, including security, of property rights under a formalized (i.e. documented) and private property regime. Property rights should therefore be defined by the community (or the state), accepted and understood by all and able to be enforced. In that context, not only statutory law but also customary and religious law and even unwritten local norms, may all address the rights and responsibilities related to property such as land. Secure property rights come with many advantages without which the economy simply collapses19 and there will be 'anarchy over the land'. Van den Brink puts it clearly when he writes: “---If a property right is insecure, investment will fall. This is why there is consensus that property rights need to be secure.” 20 Some argue that secure property rights also make political mobilization safe.21 Where property rights are respected, people with profound political differences settle their disputes peacefully in the ballot box and return to their homes unafraid of reprisals or recrimination should their party lose. Domestic Instruments The Lancaster House Constitution in 1979 resulted in a cease-fire in Zimbabwe but the Declaration of Rights (Chapter III, Section 16 read in full) of the Constitution prohibited the new government from acquiring land for 22 resettlement purposes except on a willing buyer-willing seller basis. Property rights therefore stood among other rights as having equal protection before the law in Zimbabwe. For ten years of Zimbabwe's self rule, there was respect for the private property that the white commercial farmers enjoyed, which the Constitution guaranteed and the courts protected through judicial review. It is this section of the law that was severely affected by the amendments made at the expiry of the willing buyer-willing seller clause in 1990. So, in principle, property rights lost their guarantees from 1990 as the government introduced a wave of amendments in the constitution, which sought to bring about acquisition and redistribution of land to the landless people. Thus from 1990 onwards the government was free to amend the Constitution and pass laws that could give it the required powers to implement a radical land reform programme, based on the following: the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.11) Act 30 of 1990 the Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 20:10) of 1992 the Constitution of Zimbabwe (No. 12) Act 4 of 1993 the Constitution of Zimbabwe (No 14) of 1994 These laws provided the state with significant powers to implement accelerated land reform, including a number of sanctions through which landowners could be convinced or forced to co-operate. In 1997, the government published a list of 1,471farms it intended to compulsorily acquire for redistribution. Through this policy, landowners were given 30 days to submit written objections. In addition, Amendment No. 17 of 2005 nationalized Zimbabwe farmlands and deprived farm owners of the right to challenge government's decision to expropriate land. These amendments put the hitherto guaranteed rights into reverse. Prior to these amendments, compensation for land expropriated (or acquired compulsorily) by the state for resettlement purposes had to be effected promptly and adequately and in a foreign currency of the landowners' choice. As a result, compulsory acquisition was extremely costly to the state. These constitutional amendments were aimed at moving away from prompt and adequate compensation to fair compensation paid within a reasonable time. 19 Richardson CR (2005) How the Loss of Property Rights Caused Zimbabwe's Collapse, Cato Institute, Economic and Development Bulletin, No. 4, November 14, 2005 20 Van den Brink R Land Policy and Land Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Consensus, Confusion and Controversy 21 Goetsche L. Property Rights, Conflicts and Peace located at, http://www.swisshumanrightsbook.com/SHRB/shrb_01_files/255_12%20goetschel.pdf 22 Van Horn A. (1994) Redefining "Property": The Constitutional Battle over Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe Journal of African Law, Vol. 38, No. 2 1994, pp. 144-172 8