“In these harsh economic times, street vending not only creates employment but is also a valuable source of income. Therefore from a moral, social and economic point of view, harassing and arresting people who are trying to earn an honest living seems to be too harsh and unwarranted. . .” At the same conference the then Attorney-General (now Minister of Justice) said: “I think we are all agreed that deregulation is the bulldozer, so to speak, which will help pave the way leading to indigenous participation in the national economy.” 5 For some years, the Government has allowed informal traders and vendors to carry out their activities. Some of these were operating with licences, but, to the knowledge of the authorities, others were operating in violation of legal requirements. Over a period of time, the authorities largely turned a blind eye to vendors and traders operating in violation of by-laws. As regards housing settlements, the harsh economic climate has meant that Government has been unable to provide adequate accommodation for low-income people within urban and peri-urban areas. Given the huge shortfall in available legal housing facilities, people have been forced to build makeshift structures to house their families, or to obtain lodgings in other people’s houses, often in highly congested conditions. Over the last few years, informal housing settlements have sprung up in many localities, often with the express or tacit approval of high-ranking Government officials . The Combined Harare Residents Association estimated that, prior to the clean-up operation, 6 in Harare alone, over half of the city’s estimated 3 million residents had been living in makeshift housing. In Mutare, Zimbabwe’s fourth largest city, the City Council said that there were less than 30 000 legal housing structures, and the rest of the city’s estimated 1.5 million people lived in wooden shacks. Some of the families living in the shacks in the towns had been living there undisturbed for up to 10 years. On some farms occupied during the post-2000 land invasions, war veterans and other Government supporters have established housing co-operatives, many of which were registered. High ranking Government officials often encouraged the establishment of these projects or gave their wholehearted approval to their establishment. Many of the persons occupying stands in these co-operatives, such as in Hatcliffe, were granted leases by the local authorities, although these leases had clauses imposing conditions, such as seeking approval for buildings that were to be erected. Thus, it is evident that the Government had tacitly, and even explicitly, accepted the nature of the informal sector and the informal housing arrangements prior to its current destruction of property and forced removals. Similarly the Government has publicly championed the rights of the landless, certainly in respect of rural land. This is how the Human Rights Forum described how Government itself viewed land resettlement : 7 “[The Government says it is] fighting a Third ‘Chimurenga.’ This new “war” is a struggle to achieve economic 8 justice for the black majority. The Second Chimurenga war was fought to liberate the country from the yoke of white minority rule. This armed struggle resulted in the political emancipation of the black majority, but not economic emancipation as after 1980 a tiny white settler community continued to dominate the agricultural and commercial economy. In particular, a small number of whites still owned a huge proportion of the most fertile farmland, with the black majority being relegated to poor quality land. This gross social and economic injustice could not be allowed to continue. Thus when the landless people ‘spontaneously’ invaded white farmland to 9