JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 64 ____________________________________________________________________ He found that the court could not reverse its earlier decision, since the applicants had raised no new points. He said that the many factors taken into account by the Supreme Court in reaching its previous decision did not appear to have altered. While the government might have prepared a programme of land reform that was capable of being implemented, the real question regarding legality was whether it was being implemented lawfully and in accordance with legally stipulated processes. The uncontroverted evidence put forward by the CFU showed that it was not. Haphazard squatting could not constitute a lawful programme of land reform. The detailed and uncontroverted evidence put forward by the CFU showed that the rule of law had not been restored; commercial farmers were still being prevented unlawfully from conducting their farming operations. He ruled that Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act was unconstitutional. It violated various constitutional rights. It had deprived landowners of their rights or interests in their land without compensation; it had allowed arbitrary entry into property and occupation of that property; and it had deprived landowners of their right to protection of the law and the right to freedom of association. Mr Justice Ebrahim expressed the opinion that the majority decision seemed to have been predicated not upon issues of law but rather upon issues of political expediency. This view is supported by the fact that at one point in his judgment, Chief Justice Chidyausiku had this to say: “More importantly, land acquisition and redistribution is essentially a matter of social justice and not strictly speaking a legal issue. The only legal issue of substance is whether the acquisition is done within the procedures set out by the law.” Criticism of the Majority Judgment In the interdict case the Gubbay-led court concentrated upon the large body of evidence that showed that land resettlement was being carried out in a violent and chaotic manner. The majority of the Chidyausiku court, on the other hand, simply tracked through a series of laws passed by government, some of which had been passed after the matter had been argued, which provided a façade of legality for the land acquisition. It largely turned a blind eye to the large body of convincing evidence