Harare City Council has ignited widespread outrage with its decision to demolish approximately 5,000 houses in the Zimbabwean capital, citing their construction on illegally acquired land. Mayor Jacob Mafume defended the action, asserting it was necessary to restore order and enforce municipal regulations. However, the demolitions have drawn severe criticism for their execution and humanitarian impact.
The council’s justification centers on curbing illegal land sales by so-called land barons, who profit from unregulated housing developments. These operations often lead to structures being built without proper planning approvals or access to essential amenities. The demolitions, however, have displaced hundreds of families, with some losing homes that were substantial investments. Critics argue the council’s failure to act earlier allowed illegal developments to proliferate, making the decision appear both punitive and poorly timed.
A significant portion of the criticism has been directed at the lack of alternative arrangements for those affected. Families were left to salvage belongings from rubble while officials defended the demolitions as a legal obligation. Harare’s Director of Planning, Samuel Nyabeza, emphasized that future developments would require stricter adherence to municipal regulations and threatened severe action against land barons.
Opposition leaders and activists have condemned the demolitions as a violation of human rights. Former cabinet minister Fortune Chasi called the operation “crass insensitivity and cruelty,” highlighting concerns over the absence of court orders and transparency in the process. Legislator Darlington Chigumbu urged for systemic reforms, advocating for the establishment of specialized land courts and the publication of investigative reports on illegal land dealings to address the root causes of such disputes.
Observers note the timing of these demolitions follows years of delays, leaving many questioning why enforcement agencies failed to intervene earlier during the initial stages of construction. The move has sparked accusations of political motives, with critics suggesting that targeting these properties may serve as a warning against unauthorized land use rather than a genuine attempt to regulate urban development.
