JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 142 ____________________________________________________________________ 103 Section 24. The Supreme Court found this provision to be constitutional in the case of Biti & Anor v Minister of Home Affair & Anor S-9-2002. This provision, it said, was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society as it allowed the regulating authority a reasonable opportunity of anticipating or preventing any public disorder or any breach of the peace and was also necessary to ensure that the gathering concerned did not unduly interfere with the rights of other people or lead to an obstruction of traffic, a breach of the peace or public disorder. 104 Section 26(1) of the Act. 105 Section 27(1) of the Act. 106 Section 32 of the Act. 107 This section consists of extracts of a forthcoming article entitled The Land Cases in Zimbabwe. The article deals in some detail with the background and context of the judgments by the courts in the land cases. The full article will be published in the Zimbabwe Human Rights Bulletin. 108 The present Chief Justice, Mr Justice Chidyausiku, clearly believes that these invasions were spontaneous rather than state orchestrated. In a speech to a conference of Chief Justices in South Africa in August 202 he said that the situation exploded over land because of resistance from the white farmers to land resettlement. “People started invading their lands and the whole situation really became ugly,” he said. 109 At page 480G of the report. 110 At pages 486H to 487A. 111 At page 482G to H. 112 At page 479E. 113 At page 486G. 114 At page 480C to D. 115 Commercial Farmers’ Union v Mhuriro & Ors 2000 (2) ZLR 405 (S). 116 That is still the law at the time of writing, though Government intends to amend the Class Action Act to allow class actions to be instituted in the Supreme Court. See clause 13 of the General Laws Amendment (No 2) Bill , 2002 (HB 5, 2002) 117 S-55-2001 118 S-111-2001. 119 The effect of this piece of legislation was to protect from eviction all farm occupiers who had occupied farms in anticipation of re-settlement. It suspended the operation of court orders ordering the eviction of settlers and it precluded the courts from ordering the eviction of these occupiers. It also protected the settlers against criminal and civil liability for unlawful occupation of properties and damage caused on the properties. 120 It has been reported (The Herald, 12 September 2002) that the government intends to amend the Land Acquisition Act further, to increase the fines for farmers who resist eviction and to validate retrospectively preliminary notices of acquisition which were issued without notification to bondholders as required by the Act. If the Herald’s report is accurate, the proposed amendment will seriously prejudice bond-holders. The amendment will also allow eviction on seven days’ notice, where a previous notice of acquisition has been set aside.