Background Briefing

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

The Implementation of Operation Murambatsvina (Clear the Filth)

In the days and weeks after “Operation Murambatsvina” (Clear the Filth) was launched on May 19, 2005, police burnt, bulldozed and destroyed tens of thousands of properties around the country. The destructions resulted in the mass evictions of urban dwellers from housing structures and the closure of various informal sector businesses throughout the country. According to the United Nations, 700,000 people—nearly 6 percent of the total population—have been forcibly evicted from their homes, made homeless or lost their source of livelihood since May 19.37 The evictions and demolition of houses and markets stalls, and the manner in which they were carried out, constitute serious human rights violations.

The operation was jointly organized by the Minister of Local Government and Urban Housing, Ignatius Chombo, the Minister of Home Affairs, Kembo Mohadi, the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuri, the Chairperson of the government-appointed City of Harare Commission, Sekesai Makwavara and the Governor of Metropolitan Harare, David Karimanzira.38 The official launch of the operation took place on May 19 at the Harare Town House when the Chairperson of the Harare Commission Sekesai Makwavara gave a speech informing the public that the City of Harare was officially launching Operation Murambatsvina in conjunction with the Zimbabwe Republic Police.39

On May 24, five days later, the Harare City Council published a notice in the state-owned newspaper, The Herald, of an enforcement order under the Regional Town and Country Planning Act, giving occupants the option to either regularize their houses or demolish them and was to become effective on June 20, 2005.40

Two days later, Ignatius Chombo speaking on state television also said that the government would give the public “June and July” as notice to legalize their structures.41 But on the very next day and in to the months of June and July, the government evicted thousands of people and destroyed their homes in high density suburbs such as Epworth, Mbare and Chitungwiza in Harare and in Sakubva, Mutare. The evictions then moved on to other parts of the country such as Gweru and Bulawayo.

Not all the victims were aware of the enforcement order that was published in the papers. Victims of the evictions informed Human Rights Watch that local city council authorities and the police gave them varying notice periods to leave their houses, ranging from one or two days, to a week. For example, in some instances, local city council authorities and police would visit neighborhoods a few days in advance and warn inhabitants that their houses would be demolished. In many other cases, victims received no advance warning.42 

The operation began with the police destruction of flea markets and informal trading shops in Harare. Thousands of informal market traders were arrested in the process.43 It quickly moved onto high density suburbs and informal settlements in Harare and other cities around the country.44 As the demolitions and evictions progressed, the government established a transit camp on Caledonia Farm, on the outskirts of Harare to hold evictees, whilst vetting was reportedly carried out to determine relocation to their final place of origin.45 Two other camps were established in Mutare and Bulawayo.

Patterns of evictions and demolitions

The criteria used to carry out the evictions were not only extremely broad but poorly defined. The government not only destroyed legal and illegal dwellings but failed to take into account the individual status of the dwellings. The evictions took place in all ten provinces of Zimbabwe, including the cities of Harare and Bulawayo.46 Over twenty districts and fifty towns and neighborhoods were affected by the evictions and demolitions.47 

The mass forced evictions and demolition of houses and properties included: houses built without a council permit such as unplanned houses built behind legal dwellings; houses built as part of informal settlements after residents were initially moved and resettled there by the government, for example on Porta Farm and at Hatcliffe Extension in Harare; houses built as part of housing cooperatives sometimes on farms appropriated by the government;48 and legal houses and buildings where the owners had valid leases and planning permission. Flea market stalls and business structures in the informal sector were also destroyed,49 and hundreds of licensed informal traders operating in the cities’ markets had their stalls destroyed by the government.50

Reasons for Operation Murambatsvina

As justification for the evictions, city council officials claimed that they were merely enforcing municipal by-laws and getting rid of criminal activity. According to government officials including Sekesai Makavara, the evictions and demolitions were “aimed at restoring order and sanity throughout the capital.”51 Other justifications by government officials responsible for planning the evictions included the need to prevent disorderly urbanization and stopping illegal market transactions in the informal economic sector.52

Others, however, such as local human rights lawyers and local NGOs questioned the government’s motives. They informed Human Rights Watch that they believed the evictions were an act of retribution against those who voted for the opposition during the recent elections in March 2005. Others including local NGO activists and victims of the evictions told Human Rights Watch that it was their view that the evictions were designed to prevent mass uprisings against deepening food insecurity and worsening economic conditions.53 Whatever the government’s justifications or alleged motives, the evictions created unnecessary chaos and misery and even those with valid leases and proper planning permission were unlawfully victimized and suffered extensive damage and suffering.54

Human Rights Watch interviewed James, an employed urban dweller, from New Park in Harare whose house was demolished even though he had a lease agreement from the city council and papers showing that he was a member of a housing cooperative. He said:

I borrowed 15 million Zimbabwean dollars from the bank to build the house which I am still repaying. I would not have borrowed that amount of money if I thought that what I was doing was illegal. We all had files showing that we belonged to the cooperative. All the payments we made every month were kept in a file. The file would have a photocopy of your ID and your cooperative membership card55.

Human rights lawyers interviewed by Human Rights Watch in Harare also argued that the government’s rationale for the evictions of “the need to restore order” did not legitimize the government’s failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and proper administrative procedures especially where the government failed to provide adequate notice and/or alternative accommodation for those affected—indeed no rationale would justify the egregious human rights violations associated with the operation and its aftermath.56

Failure to adhere to legal procedures

In Harare, local human rights lawyers informed Human Rights Watch that the Harare City Council notice was vague in that the affected persons were not clearly identified and the action required to be taken by each category of people affected was not clearly stipulated, leading to confusion about which dwellings would be demolished.57 The evictions were also not carried out in accordance with procedures set out in Zimbabwe’s national laws, including section 32 of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act.

The Act stipulates under section 32 that an enforcement order for evictions shall not be operative until the expiry of the period stipulated which gives occupants one month to vacate the premises. It also stipulates that an appeal against the order automatically suspends it. Another law, the Urban Council Act requires twenty-eight days notice during which time those issued with an eviction order can appeal to the courts. Under this Act, no action can be taken until the court issues its determination.58

Lawyers working for the organization, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, sought a number of court injunctions against the evictions but reported that the manner of disposal of urgent challenges to the evictions was unduly prolonged by the High Court. They also argued that in some cases judges showed an unwillingness to deal firmly and decisively with those who violated the law, for example officials who showed disregard for legal administrative procedures during the evictions. This led to people “losing faith in the ability of the judicial process to offer them protection or other satisfactory remedies.”59  In the cases where court injunctions against the evictions were successful, local authorities and police ignored court orders. For example, police and local city council authorities in Harare ignored two existing High Court orders on June 29 and 30 “barring them from removing people from Porta Farm, on the outskirts if Harare, assaulting them or destroying their property.” The 10,000 inhabitants of Porta Farm were eventually evicted and their houses demolished by the police on June 29 and 30, 2005.60

In a meeting with representatives from NGOs and church organizations on June 15, 2005, Ignatius Chombo, claimed that the government knew what it was doing regarding the evictions and had a long term plan that was being operationalized by all the relevant ministries.61 Yet the government failed to put in place adequate infrastructure or sufficient support plans to provide humanitarian assistance to those affected by the evictions, including well defined relocation sites, alternative accommodation or shelter and the provision of essential services as required by international law.62

The Zimbabwe government has refused to acknowledge that the evictions were unlawful. The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs reportedly told parliament that the state was not breaching any conventions, laws or treaties in carrying out the operation but merely applying the rule of law.”63 

On July 22, the government gave a strong response to the report on the evictions by UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Anna Tibaijuka, that concluded that the evictions had taken place in an “indiscriminate and unjustified manner, with indifference to human suffering,” and called for those responsible for the evictions to be brought to justice.64 The Zimbabwe government’s Foreign Minister described the UN Special Envoy’s report as biased and false and accused her of using “judgemental language.”65 On August 17, in a forty-six-page response to the report, the government claimed that the evictions were carried out in the confines of Zimbabwe’s national laws and were consistent with international provisions.66

Movement of people to the rural areas

Following the evictions, thousands of people—more than 100,000 according to the UN67—were left with no alternative but to move to the rural areas, often with traumatic consequences since these areas offer few employment opportunities and suffer acute food shortages. There has also been a reduction in the delivery of social services in the areas of health and education. In addition, many of those forced to the rural areas have no relatives there. This is particularly the case amongst Zimbabweans of foreign origin that were either brought up on farms or grew up in the urban areas. A number of people in this category told Human Rights Watch that they had no place to go to other than the urban areas.68

Women face particular hardship. One of the reasons many women—especially widows—are likely to have left the rural areas is that many were likely to be evicted by their in-laws when their husbands died. For such women, it would be almost impossible to return to the area where their property was taken from them. They may also face forced widow-inheritance (forced marriage to an in-law) if they return, as occurs in some rural areas of Zimbabwe. In addition, no guarantee exists that these women will have family in their rural homes willing to take them back, especially in the context of food shortages.69

Since the evictions began, the government has attempted to convince and coerce evictees into relocating to the rural areas. The government provided few transit camps and ignored the thousands of people sleeping in the streets in an attempt to force them to return to the rural areas. For example, at Porta Farm, police told victims that they had a choice: to either go back to the rural areas or end up at the transit camp in Caledonia.70 Victims reported to Human Rights Watch that they were threatened with fines and violence if they decided to remain in the area where their houses were demolished.71  Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that police hired extra trucks and took a number of people to a designated transit camp for evicted people on Caledonia Farm. Others were driven fifty kilometers out of Harare and told to find other means of proceeding on to the rural areas.

Victims reported to Human Rights Watch that the police repeatedly told them to go back to the rural areas.72 Police and government officials gave no justification for these calls. Instead, they told victims that all Zimbabweans had a rural home to which they belonged.73 These statements were repeated by government officials on numerous occasions. For instance, in response to a question on the impact of the evictions and demolitions in Parliament on June 22, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa informed Members of Parliament that evicted people would go back to their rural homes, and Zimbabwean citizens of Malawian, Zambian or Mozambican or other foreign origin would be sent to resettlement farms around the country.74 But local NGOs argued that the weak economy has had a severe impact on the rural areas where there are few employment opportunities, poor social services and acute food shortages.75

Local church organizations and charities were left with the dilemma of either helping the government in its objective of relocating people to the rural areas, or watching women, children and sick persons suffer in the cold without any assistance. As a result, some organizations provided evictees with transport to the rural areas.

One local priest told Human Rights Watch:

Sending the people back to the rural areas has been controversial because other organizations don’t want us to send them to the rural areas. They say its doing the government’s dirty work, helping the government with its relocation policy. But the people have asked us to. We have the names of 200-250 families still sleeping outside registered with us wishing to go home and asking for transport. They can’t continue to sleep outside. Something has to be done.76

After the evictions: the rebuilding and reconstruction program

On June 29, the government announced a new phase of the operation called “Operation Garikai,” (reconstruction), reportedly to provide decent accommodation to those affected by the evictions and to substantially reduce the urban housing waiting list.77 President Mugabe announced that the government had set aside 3 trillion Zimbabwe dollars (US$300 million) to build up to 1.2 million houses.78 According to the UN report on the impact of the evictions, the government claimed that it would build 4900 stands (plots) in the coming months.79 But the report argued that Operation Garikai seemed to have been hastily implemented and did not account for the immediate shelter needs of people who had been rendered homeless by the evictions.80 In any case, those affected would likely not have had their rights so seriously violated, if prior to the evictions, the government had undertaken a consultation process and looked at ways of minimizing the negative effects of the evictions. As Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights argued, “such a program would have achieved more beneficial results if there had been a process of research, verification, consultation and subsequent action, including the regularization of any purported illegal structures rather than demolitions.”81

In July, the government decided to close the transit camp that was set up for evicted people in Harare.82 On July 21, Ignatius Chombo informed the inhabitants of Caledonia Transit Camp that the government would vet people to determine who would be re-allocated houses.83 In violation of the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence, those without formal jobs and no offer letter for housing stands were told that they would be compulsorily transported to their rural areas of origin.84

Those with valid lease agreements were told that they would return to properly demarcated housing stands.85 Although a number of people from the camp were transported to housing stands in places such as Hatcliffe Extension, many others were reportedly transported to the rural areas.86 In addition, police relocated over 2000 men, women and children from the transit camp to a place called Hopley Farm along Masvingo road, reportedly for further vetting by government officials.87 Lawyers and UN officials informed Human Rights Watch that people initially spent weeks at the farm without shelter, food or other basic necessities, as the government at first refused to allow humanitarian agencies on to the farm. The agencies were later able to negotiate access to assist the people.88

It is an open question as to who will benefit from the reconstruction operation. The criterion for allocating houses seems to discriminate against those without formal employment or housing.89 The government has yet to clarify whether the thousands that have moved to the rural areas will be compensated for the houses and businesses they lost. The government has claimed that the reconstruction phase of the evictions will restore dignity to the affected population.90 But thousands of people are now internally displaced and remain homeless and destitute with little or no access to shelter, food or water.



[37]UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005.

[38] Human Rights Watch interview with city council housing officer and UN officials,  Harare  June 25 and 30, 2005; See also Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum report “ Order out of chaos or chaos out of order: A preliminary report on Operation Murambatsvina,” June 2005.

[39] Ibid.

[40] As published in the Herald Newspaper of May 24, 2005.

[41] Speaking on Zimbabwe Television, May 26, 2005.

[42] Human Rights Watch interviews, Harare and Mutare, June and July 2005.

[43] Interview with Otto Saki, human rights lawyer, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, June 21, 2005; See IRIN report, “Informal traders hit back at government crackdown,” May 23, 2005.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Human Rights Watch interview with city council housing officer and UN officials, Harare June 25 and 30, 2005.

[46]UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005.

[47] Interim-United Nations Multi Sectoral Response Plan to the Recent Evictions in Zimbabwe, July 5, 2005.

[48] In its initial state party report to the ICESCR, the Zimbabwean government stated, The Government is encouraging the formation of cooperatives which will put their resources together and build houses for their members. To facilitate this, the Government has urged local authorities to provide cooperatives with serviced or unserviced land for housing development. The Government for its part provides technical assistance to cooperatives in such areas as preparation of topographical survey maps, preparation of lay-out plans, and coming up with civil engineering designs, etc.”

[49] Human Rights interviews with victims, Harare, June 25, 2005.

[50] Human Rights Watch interview with Otto Saki, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights,  June 21, 2005.

[51] As stated in an address on Zimbabwe National Television, May 20, 2005.

[52] UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005; see also Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, “Order out of chaos or chaos out of order? A preliminary report on Operation Murambatsvina,” June 2005; International Crisis Group Report, “Zimbabwe’s Operation Murambatsvina: The tipping point?” August 17, 2005.

[53] Human Rights Watch interviews, June 2005; See also UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005; Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, “Order out of chaos or chaos out of order? A preliminary report on Operation Murambatsvina,” June 2005; International Crisis Group Report, “Zimbabwe’s Operation Murambatsvina: The tipping point?” August 17, 2005.

[54] Human Rights Watch interviews with human rights lawyers and local NGOs, June 2005.

[55] Human Rights Watch interview, Harare, June 20, 2005.

[56] Human Rights Watch interviews with human rights lawyers and local NGOs, June 2005; See also Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights press statement, “The Legal Implications of Operation Murambatsvina and Operation Restore Order, June 30, 2005; See also Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum report “ Order out of chaos or chaos out of order: A preliminary report on Operation Murambatsvina,” June 2005.

[57] Human Rights Watch interview with Geoff Feltoe, University of Zimbabwe, June 20, 2005, Blessing Chimhini, SAHRIT, June 22 and Otto Saki, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, June 21, 2005.

[58] Under the Urban Council Act, before taking any action, the council shall serve notice to the owner of a building or land specifying the nature of the action proposed and the grounds upon which it proposes to take that action.

[59] Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights Press Statement, “The legal implications of Operation Murambatsvina and Operation Restore Order,” June 30, 2005.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Minutes of consultative meeting on the forced evictions between government officials, representatives from local NGOs and church organizations, June 15, 2005.

[62] Human Rights Watch interviews with UN officials June and July 2005.

[63] The Herald newspaper, “State to relocate displaced people,” June 23, 2005.

[64] UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005.

[65] See SABC News Online, “Zimbabwe says UN report biased, hostile, false,” July 22, 2005. The Herald, “UN report on clean up biased says government,” July 23, 2005.

[66] Response by Government of Zimbabwe to the report by the UN Special Envoy on Operation Murambatsvina/ Restore Order, August 17, 2005.

[67] UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-finding missions to assess the scope and impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005.

[68] Human Rights Watch interviews with victims, June 2005.

[69] Human Rights Watch interviewed a number of women in particular widows, who detailed their concerns about returning to the rural areas in June 2005.

[70] Human Rights Watch interviews with victims on Porta Farm, June 29 and 30, 2005.

[71] Ibid.

[72] op cit.

[73] Human Rights Watch interviews with victims in Harare and Mutare, June 16-July 3, 2005.

[74] The Herald newspaper, “State to relocate displaced people,” June 23, 2005.

[75] Human Rights Watch interviews, June and July 2005.

[76] Human Rights Watch interview with local priest, Harare, June 28, 2005.

[77] The Herald Online, “Spear head Operation Garikai, councils told,” July 15, 2005.

[78] The Herald Online, “Garikai, solution to housing woes,” July 27, 2005.

[79] UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to assess the Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina, July 22, 2005.

[80] Ibid.

[81] Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights Press Statement, “The Legal Implications of Operation Murambatsvina and Operation Restore Order, June 30, 2005.

[82] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews, July 21, 2005; see also News 24 online, “Zim closes camp for homeless,” July 24, 2005.

[83] Minutes of address of meeting with Caledonia Farm residents by the Minister of Local government Ignatius Chombo, July 21, 2005. People at Caledonia Transit Camp were told that if they had lease agreements they would be given priority to return to their stands; those paying membership fees and registered with housing cooperatives would be allowed to go back and stay on allocated pieces of land; all people that have jobs in Harare but have no housing stands would need to prove their status to camp management before they were granted permission to seek alternative accommodation in Harare; those without jobs and no offer letter for housing stands were told they would be compulsorily transported to their rural areas of origin.

[84] Ibid.

[85] op cit. See also ReliefWeb, “Zimbabwe to relocate people affected in demolition campaign,” July 21, 2005.

[86] Human Rights Watch telephone interviews, August 17 and 18, 2005. See also The Sunday Mail, Zimbabwe, “Caledonia officially closed,” July 24, 2005.

[87] Ibid.

[88] Ibid. See also IRIN News online, “UN hopes for greater access to displaced,” August 15, 2005.

[89] This report has documented the fact that the majority of people affected by the evictions work in the informal sector and lived in informal housing and thus do not qualify to receive housing. See also report by the UN Special Envoy op cit.

[90] Response by Government of Zimbabwe to the report by the UN Special Envoy on Operation Murambatsvina/ Restore Order, August 17, 2005.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>September 2005