According to the land policy statement of the government of Zimbabwe adopted in 1990, which still applies, the criteria for identifying land to be acquired for redistribution are that the land is: derelict, underutilized, owned by a farmer who also has other farms, foreign-owned, or contiguous to communal areas. Some refinements of these criteria can be deduced from government statements.41 Under the fast track land reform process, as more and more farms have been listed, these criteria have largely been abandoned. In particular during the initial land occupations and when fast track land reform was officially adopted, farms have been selected for gazetting on different criteria, which, judging by the practice, have apparently included whether the farm owner is a prominent MDC supporter, in addition to farms where the farm owner did not treat workers well, those where there was conflict between the farm owner and farmers on surrounding communal area land, and farms where a community now resident in a communal area has a historical claim to the land. However, there is no formal process, for example, to ensure that people from a communal area who have a historical claim get precedence in settling on that land. Rather, the fast track process has brought people who otherwise have no connection with each other together in new settlements. The government has not engaged in any speedy process to guarantee security of tenure on land allocated for resettlement: settlers on A1 model farms are in theory being issued temporary occupation licenses, expected to be converted in time into proper leases.42 Moreover, in practice farms have been occupied even when they have not been listed under any of the set legal procedures; though this process seems to have slowed in the last quarter of 2001. 43 Since the introduction of the fast track process, government policy and stated aims in relation to redistribution and land occupations have repeatedly changed. 44 There are clearly divisions within Zanu-PF as to the way forward on land reform, between those favoring an orderly legal process, and those urging a “revolutionary” approach. New legislation has been brought in to supplement the original laws providing for the fast track program and to legalize processes that were formally illegal at the time they were begun. The Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act of June 2001 protects from eviction for a period of twelve months (originally six months) those who had occupied land up to February 2001 without following the proper procedures, and suspended the application of court orders for eviction. In November 2001, President Mugabe used his “presidential powers” to amend the Land Acquisition Act, with retroactive effect to May 2000. The new provisions mean that ownership of designated land is transferred immediately, irrespective of any court challenge, to the acquiring authority and serves as a ninety-day eviction notice for the previous owner (penalties for noncompliance include imprisonment for up to two years). At any time after the serving of a “section 8” notice under the amended act, the government has the right to stop farming operations on the farm affected. In November 2001, the minister of lands, agriculture and rural resettlement launched regulations limiting maximum farm sizes to units ranging from 250400 hectares in the main arable areas and 2,000 hectares in the grazing areas. The Commercial Farmers’ Union has adopted a two-track approach in responding to the fast track land reform process and land occupations. On the one hand, the union has challenged the new laws and policies in the courts. In December 2000, the CFU was successful in obtaining an interdict from the Zimbabwe Supreme Court barring further land acquisitions on the grounds that the fast track program was unconstitutional, because it was being carried out in a violent and haphazard manner. The government has criticized the courts generally for standing in the way of land reform and has repeatedly failed to abide by court orders; including this one. In November 2001, the same court overturned the interdict, on the grounds that the government now had a lawful program of land reform. The judgment accepted the government’s argument that new legislation had retroactively 41 Moyo, “The Interaction of Market and Compulsory Land Acquisition Processes with Social Action in Zimbabwe’s Land Reform,” p.24. 42 UNDP Interim Mission Report, January 2002, p.30. 43 Ibid., p.18. 44 As early as February 28, 2000, the minister for home affairs issued a statement instructing the occupiers of land to leave, but the order was reversed by the president. In April 2000, Acting President Msika again called on war veterans and their followers to vacate the occupied farms; President Mugabe countermanded this when he returned to Zimbabwe from traveling abroad—while claiming that the government had no control over the veterans. Contradictory statements have continued. Human Rights Watch 13 March 2002, Vol. 14, No. 1 (A)