JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 57 ____________________________________________________________________ In its judgment the court observed: “there is no dispute whatever that a programme of land reform is necessary and indeed essential for the future peace and prosperity of Zimbabwe”.109 In a matter of such importance, the court said, one would expect the programme to be in writing and in conformity with the law. Although the land issue was a political question, the political method of resolving it was “by enacting laws”. Government had enacted the necessary laws but had then failed to comply with the laws it had enacted. In previous judgments the courts were doing no more than to insist that the government complied with the law. The court found that government was “unwilling to carry out a sustainable programme of land reform in terms of its own law”. 110 Land resettlement had not been carried out in accordance with a programme of land reform as required by s 16A of the Constitution or in accordance with other laws. The settling of people on farms “has been entirely haphazard and unlawful ... A network of organisations, operating with complete disregard for the law, has been allowed to take over from government. War veterans, villagers and unemployed townspeople have simply moved onto farms. They have been supported, encouraged, transported and financed by party officials, public servants, the CIO and the Army.” 111 “Farmers and farm workers on the occupied farms have been denied the protection of the law. … The Rule of Law in the commercial farming areas has been overthrown.”112 The court went on to say: “Wicked things have been done, and continue to be done. They must be stopped. Common law crimes have been, and are being, committed with impunity. Laws made by Parliament have been flouted by the Government. The activities of the past nine months must be condemned.”113 The court declared that the farm occupations amounted to unfair discrimination. It said that the expropriation of farms owned by whites, in order to right historical wrongs, might not have constituted unfair discrimination on the grounds of race provided it was done lawfully and with the payment of fair compensation. However, various government officials had announced that only ZANU (PF) supporters would be re-settled on the land. There was no doubt that it amounted to unfair political discrimination to target farmers who were believed to be supporters of an opposition party, and to award the spoils of expropriation primarily to ruling party supporters. “If ZANU (PF) party branches or cells or officials are involved in the selection of settlers