The police also made no attempt to comply with the order claiming that the issue was a political one and that it would be impossible and counterproductive to act. By refusing to enforce court orders calling upon him to evict illegal land occupiers, the Commissioner of Police denied the farmers and the farm workers their right to the protection of the law as enshrined in the Constitution of Zimbabwe and a number of International Instruments to which Zimbabwe is a signatory. Realizing the intensity of the farm invasions, the ensuing violence and the disregard of court orders, the CFU 43 took the matter to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe. In CFU v Minister of Agriculture Land and Resettlement, the full bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 21 December 2000. The court declared that the rule of law had been persistently violated in commercial farming areas of Zimbabwe since February 2000 and it was imperative that the situation be rectified forthwith; that persons in commercial farming areas had been denied the protection of the law in contravention of Section 18 of the Constitution; had suffered discrimination on the grounds of political opinions and place of origin in contravention of Section 23 of the Constitution; had their rights of assembly and association infringed in contravention of Section 21 of the Constitution; and that there was not in existence at the present time a programme of land reform as that phrase is used in Section 16A of the Constitution. The court ordered all Ministers involved, the Commissioner of Police and the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe to comply immediately with the Consent Order of 10 November 2000 in CFU v Minister of Agriculture, Land and Resettlement.44 This essentially required removal again of all unlawful invaders from commercial farms, the prevention of further invasions, the production of a workable programme of land reform and the restoration of the rule of law in commercial farming areas by no later than 1 July 2001. This did not happen and instead the invasions continued and became more violent. In George Quinnell v the Ministry of Agriculture,45 Quinnell appealed to have his eviction order overturned and amendments to the country's land laws to be declared unconstitutional. Though the case took two years to come to court, the eviction order was overturned. In passing the judgement, it was noted that the Land Acquisition Amendment Act No 6 of 2002 was not lawfully enacted and thus of no force and effect. Although, in almost all cases, the courts ruled that the land reform process was illegal and violated property rights, the government and the law enforcement agencies were not willing to carry out a sustainable land reform programme as displayed by their disrespect of the judicial decisions. In response to these legal challenges, the government proceeded by introducing Constitutional Amendment No. 17 of 2005, which confirmed all acquisitions. This meant that resettled people could no longer be evicted. About 4,000 court applications by commercial farmers challenging the seizure of their properties which were pending in the country's courts were removed from the court's roll. Amendment 17 successfully eroded the rule of law and ousted the jurisdiction of the courts over all cases of acquisition rendering impotent national and international obligations for the right to protection of the law. The amendment effectively extinguished any judicial authority over land. Thus the GoZ used the landless people to attack what it should have defended; that is property rights, the rule of law and its own citizens. In May 2006, Mike Campbell Private Limited 46 applied to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Amendment 17 and sought relief from the continued invasions and intimidations on his farm. Campbell argued that Amendment Number 17 infringed the principles of human rights, democracy and the law. The Supreme Court unreasonably delayed in giving judgement, forcing Campbell to launch proceedings with the SADC Tribunal in October 2007 and was joined by 78 former commercial farmers in the case. However, in January 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed Campbell's challenge. The court ordered that race was not an issue in the case, that the GoZ had an inherent right to compulsorily acquire property and that the legislature has full powers to amend the Constitution. Thus, the Amendment effectively extinguished any judicial recourse or remedy for farmers who wished to object to the acquisition of their farms. 43 CFU vs. Minister ofAgriculture Land and Resettlement (SC132/2000) CFU vs. Minister of Agriculture, Land and Resettlement (SC 314/2000) George Quinnell vs. the Ministry of Agriculture (SC47/O4) 46 See Mike Campbell Pvt Ltd another v the Zimbabwe Republic Police SC49/07. 44 45 12