By Mafa Kwanisai Mafa

The question posed whether Donald Trump will help or hinder Zimbabwe’s white farmers in their compensation battle is itself a reflection of a deeply distorted global narrative, one that continues to centre colonial privilege while marginalising African historical truth.

It is a question that presupposes legitimacy in claims that are rooted not in justice, but in conquest, dispossession, and racial domination. This very premise must be rejected outright.

Zimbabwe’s land question is not a technical legal dispute over property rights; it is a historical, political, and moral question born out of violent colonial theft. The land seized during the colonial occupation was not acquired through negotiation or lawful exchange; it was taken through the barrel of the gun, through forced removals, massacres, and systematic racial exclusion.

Indigenous Africans were driven from fertile lands into barren reserves, their livelihoods destroyed, their dignity assaulted, and their humanity denied. This was not an accident of history; it was a deliberate system of settler colonialism designed to enrich a white minority at the expense of the African majority.

The so-called white commercial farmers, whose compensation claims are now being championed in international discourse, are the historical beneficiaries of this injustice. Their wealth and status were built upon land that was never rightfully theirs.

To now frame them as victims, deserving of compensation from the very people they dispossessed, is a grotesque inversion of justice. It is akin to rewarding the thief while ignoring the suffering of the robbed.

Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform Programme was not an act of charity or political expediency; it was the continuation of the liberation struggle by other means. The armed struggle that culminated in independence in 1980 was fundamentally about land, the reclamation of stolen heritage, and the restoration of African sovereignty.

When the promises of equitable land redistribution were frustrated by colonial-era protections and international pressure, the people of Zimbabwe took decisive action. The land reform programme was, therefore, an expression of historical justice, long overdue.

Those who now demand compensation for white farmers conveniently ignore the Lancaster House Agreement’s constraints, which temporarily protected white land ownership under the “willing seller, willing buyer” principle. Britain, as the former colonial power, undertook to fund land redistribution.

Yet, when the time came, it reneged on its obligations, exposing the bad faith that has always underpinned Western engagement with post-colonial Africa. Zimbabwe was left with no choice but to pursue land reform unilaterally.

The idea that Zimbabwe should now incur massive debt to compensate former colonial beneficiaries is not only unjust; it is economically reckless and politically dangerous.

It would shackle future generations to a burden they did not create, diverting scarce resources away from development, education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It would effectively punish the descendants of the oppressed for daring to reclaim what was rightfully theirs.

Moreover, the involvement of external actors, such as a former U.S. president like Donald Trump, in this matter raises serious concerns about sovereignty and neo-colonial interference. The United States has consistently positioned itself as a defender of property rights in Africa, but this stance is selective and deeply ideological.

It prioritises the interests of capital and historical privilege over the realities of colonial exploitation. Any attempt by foreign powers to influence Zimbabwe’s internal policies, particularly on such a sensitive and foundational issue, must be firmly resisted.

This is not to suggest that engagement and re-engagement with the international community are undesirable. Zimbabwe, like any nation, must navigate the global system to advance its development goals. However, such engagement must be based on mutual respect, sovereignty, and a clear understanding that certain principles are non-negotiable. The land reform programme is one such principle. It is irreversible. It is the bedrock of Zimbabwe’s post-colonial identity and its commitment to economic justice.

To make compensation of white farmers a condition for re-engagement or the lifting of sanctions is to weaponise economic pressure in defence of historical injustice. It is to say that African nations must pay a price for their liberation, that they must apologise for correcting the crimes of colonialism. This is unacceptable.

If there is to be any discussion of compensation, it should begin with a reckoning of colonial crimes. Where are the reparations for the land stolen, the labour exploited, the lives lost, and the cultures destroyed? Where is the accountability for the massacres, the forced removals, the systemic racism that defined colonial rule? These are not abstract questions; they are concrete demands for justice that have been ignored for far too long.

The global system has normalised a narrative in which Africa is perpetually indebted, perpetually in need of validation from former colonisers and their allies. This narrative must be dismantled.

Zimbabwe’s experience is a powerful reminder that true independence requires not only political sovereignty but also economic and land sovereignty. It requires the courage to confront historical injustice and to chart an independent path, even in the face of intense external pressure.

The land and mineral resources of Zimbabwe belong to its people, past, present, and future. They are not bargaining chips to be traded in negotiations for sanctions relief or international approval. They are the foundation upon which the nation must build its prosperity and dignity. To compromise on this would be to betray the sacrifices of those who fought and died for liberation.

Those who continue to advocate for compensation of white farmers under the guise of fairness or legal obligation must be challenged. Their arguments often rely on a narrow interpretation of property rights, divorced from historical context and moral consideration.

They ignore the fact that the legal frameworks they invoke were themselves products of colonial domination, designed to entrench inequality and exclusion.

A truly just and equitable approach must centre the experiences and rights of the African majority. It must recognise that land reform was not an aberration but a necessary correction. It must reject the imposition of external conditions that undermine national sovereignty and perpetuate neo-colonial dynamics.

Zimbabwe stands at a critical juncture, navigating the complexities of re-engagement while safeguarding its revolutionary gains. The path forward requires clarity of purpose and unwavering commitment to the principles of Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism. It requires leadership that understands that the struggle did not end in 1980, but continues in new forms.

In this context, the question is not whether Donald Trump or any external actor will help or hinder white farmers. The real question is whether Zimbabwe will remain steadfast in defending its sovereignty and the legacy of its liberation struggle. The answer must be unequivocal.

The land reform programme is irreversible. The sacrifices that made it possible cannot be undone. Zimbabwe will not be bullied into compensating the beneficiaries of its own oppression. Instead, it must continue to assert its right to define its future, free from the constraints of colonial history and neo-colonial pressure.

This is not merely a national issue; it is a continental and global one. It speaks to the broader struggle for justice, dignity, and self-determination that continues to define the African experience. Zimbabwe’s stance is a declaration that the era of unquestioned Western dominance is over, that the voices of the historically oppressed will no longer be silenced or sidelined.

In the final analysis, the land question is settled. What remains is the task of building a just and prosperous society on that foundation, without compromise, without apology, and without surrender.