@mawarirej It is not true that Constitutions are perfect. Even the drafters leave room for amendment, knowing that ambiguity may arise in interpretation. The Land Commission Act , which was enacted after the 2013 Constitution, answers s293(3), in my view. The preamble is very clear.
@igweeboss@RexMidzi@ProfJNMoyo The Constitution is clear on how previous title deeds were cancelled. I don believe there are any major loopholes save for our partisan approach to the whole saga. Compensation is for developments on the land, which we all agreed to be part of the supreme law.
@RexMidzi@ProfJNMoyo Agreed. The State as the bonafide owner of land cannot be barred from distributing it to deserving beneficiaries. It will be an absurdity to say the State can only hold land but NOT give it to the people. That could not have been the intention of the lawmaker.
@LangaJones π€£π€£π€£...and here I was thinking of scaring a work colleague...is it safe? Can I ask you for assistance later if things go sideways...ππ
@ChikomoPrazen Such a pedestrian approach to section 3(2)(a) of the Constitution by Brian, is a huge red flag. The section, if read in context, envisions a political party system and NOT a bambazonke approach just because someone is a baker or student. One must belong to a political party first
@tafimhaka It is always nice when you fail to mention how cruel these farmers were to their employees. There are horrific stories yet to be told. Two wrongs do not make a right but we need to be fair in our narratives unless the motive is to make these white folks angels.
@tafimhaka Take it easy Tafi. You only care about morality when it comes to white farmers? What about your fellow black citizens who suffered under these farmers? Fairness demands a look at both sides of the coin. I do not condone murder but ask for fairness.