Table 2: Case study of Zimbabwe Place
Zimbabwe
Relevant Missions
United Nations Special Envoy on Human Settlements Issues released a report on a mission carried out between June 26 and July 8, 2005 in Zimbabwe.
Principal Cause of Eviction
‘City beautification’/clean up: Operation Murambatsvina (OM), or ‘Operation Restore Order,’ implemented by the Zimbabwean government from May 2005 onwards and intended to destroy all informal housing in urban areas and clamp down on informal trading.
The Eviction Process and its Effects
•
•
• •
• • • Relevant Legislation and Legal Issues
• •
•
•
38
UN-HABITAT held that OM has caused the loss of shelter and/or livelihood for nearly 700,000 people. Some urban centres lost 60% of their homes. Most demolished shelters had access to basic services. Evictions were carried out without adequate notice, court orders, due process, legal protection, redress or relocation measures, in violation of Zimbabwe’s international human rights law obligations. Characteristic of ‘city beautification’ evictions, government officials justified OM by claiming that slum residents presented an economic, security and health threat to the country. Several reports allege that evictions were in part a political retribution against groups that supported the opposition in preceding elections. Evictees were reportedly ordered by officials to return to their rural places of origins, or to face further evictions if they were to attempt to find alternative shelters in urban areas. Evictions and demolitions proceeded without appropriate notice and at many times without any notice at all. Many evictees were forced to leave all their personal property behind, and had no chance of looking for alternative accommodation. Lack of notice also meant that the State did not give individuals a chance to show documents evidencing the legality of their tenure. OM was undertaken at a time of triple-digit inflation, shortage of food and fuel supplies, and in a highly polarized and tense political climate. The deprivation of shelter had drastic impacts and led to the denial of multiple rights in addition to the right to adequate housing. The general political unrest and the constraints on civil society further exacerbated the situation by hindering necessary response. Follow-up reports show that most evictees were driven deeper into poverty in following years and were not given compensation. Most evictions were justified under the colonial-era Regional, Town and Country Planning Act of 1976 which facilitated segregation. Other relevant legislation is the Housing Standards Control Act of 1972 and the Urban Councils Act of 1995. Evictions failed to follow relevant requirements under national and international law. In addition to lack of notice, eviction orders were carried out by the central government’s police, which was unauthorized to do so under the Planning Act, in breach of international human rights law requirement that evictions be carried out by the authorized and accountable official agents. Evictions were often done in an arbitrary fashion with no regard to whether the evictees held legal title to their property or not. The State breached the requirement under international human rights law to provide adequate legal venues for potential evictees to contest their eviction. The State completely disregarded the requirement to engage in prior consultation with potential evictees and explore alternatives.
Forced Evictions: Global Crisis, Global Solutions