Blacks Do Need Land

In a recent debate between Andile Mngxitama and Dawie Roodt the following things were said and I quote

Roodt‚ however‚ said according to research‚ fewer than 5% of black people in SA considered land to be the most important issue. “The most important issue is unemployment - we want jobs‚ we want to grow the economy in order to alleviate poverty in SA‚” said Roodt. 

Roodt said farms were not the place where wealth creation happened in a modern economy. “People do not want farms. People want to stay in cities‚ where they can have proper and decent jobs. We are not going to break agricultural land into millions of small pieces and settle millions of small farmers in SA‚” he said.

This narrative conveniently omits the full context of the land situation and how it was deliberately and nefariously designed to be that way by colonial minds.

 At the turn of the last century the mining industry was just emerging, and it was faced with a serious problem -- labour shortage. Natives were unwilling to work in the mines.

What was the reason? It was because they had access to economically viable land. Economically viable does not mean land to become a millionaire but land to feed your family and shelter them. They preferred to work their own land.

Organisations, such as The Witwatersrand Native Labour Association (WNLA commonly known as Wenela) and the Native Recruitment Corporation (NRC) were formed to recruit labour. WNLA had offices as far afield as Tanzania.

In the vast territory of Central and Southern Africa natives were not looking for jobs and didn't want jobs.

A look at the timelines is informative. In 1894 the chamber of mines wrote a report on the serious shortage of labour on the mines. Around 1900 WNLA and NRC were formed to recruit native labour as far and wide as possible.

About a decade later, in 1913, the Native Lands Act was passed. This act banned natives from owning land, or renting land from whites. It should be clear as a baboon's behind that the main objective of this act and other practices to stop natives from sustaining themselves or profiting from the land. It was a tool to turn the natives into cheap labour by denying them access to land.

Over the years, the law has been a huge success. Today most of the natives have got no other choice but to look for a job because they have got no economically viable pieces of land which could be an alternative to a job.

When economists like Roodt brazenly boast that black people do not want land but jobs, they are correct but the carefully skirt around the deeper reasons for that. People are now forced to think no further than their immediate basic needs - food and shelter for the very near future. Generations who have grown without access to land find it hard to envision how access to land will solve these basic problem.

They think the solution to food and shelter is a supermarket and money for rent.

It has taken generations to adjust natives to that mentality. Give them access to land and time to adjust they will soon learn that another solution is tilling the land and building houses with materials you find on your own or a neighbour's land.

I do not know whether is is out of ignorance or by design that Roodt omits the background of the iniquitous designs of colonialists that made sure that for the generations natives knew of no other alternative but to find a job.

If you give them the choice and opportunity it is quite possible for the natives to soon learn that land will not only provide an alternative means of sustenance, but enable you to be the master of your own time.

When you live on the land you work you cut your cost of living drastically. You no longer need transport every day. You also have extra time for other activities by cutting down on commuting time.

Land reform is absolutely necessary, not as a way of getting back at racist whites for past wrongs, but as a way of rebuilding a fair and equitable society from the wreck of past racist designs. Only a fair and equitable society can ensure future social stability for everyone.

Despite all it their might, past racist governments failed to enforce inequitable living standards forever. Today people should not think a black government can sustain the inequities where past racist governments failed.

Social imbalance will always lead to revolution. Ask the French, the Bolsheviks or the English. The Magna Carta was born out of bloody struggles over unfair land distribution.

Labour serfdom is not an alternative for South Africa today just as it was not an alternative for Britain those many centuries ago.

The Reason For Many Foreign Trips by Zimbabwe Politicians

https://www.herald.co.zw/ed-courts-africas-vote-on-sanctions/

If you would believe the Herald ED went to Guinea to ask for the removal of sanctions. I didn't know ED's spin doctors have such a low opinion of our intelligence. They would have us believe that ED's visit to Guinea is very important since it has something to do with the removal of Western sanctions.

The truth is quite different. Over the past few years successive ministers have lamented that the government wage bill was taking 90% of Zimbabwe's budget. The latest information filtering into the public domain is that 40% of this figure goes towards, not basic salaries, but allowances for top executives.

A substantial portion of these allowances are travel related. The reason why Zimbabwe's top leadership is always on the road with huge entourages is to give cronies and other posterior clingons the opportunity to milk state coffers dry through exorbitant travel allowances.

When they embark on these travels, they cannot use worthless Zimbabwe currency such as bond notes. That is the reason why they take foreign currency from anyone who brings it into Zimbabwe. They then quietly give their travel allowances priority when allocating that foreign currency to the extend of sometimes leaving the state without enough to import basic necessities such as fuel.

Travel is one of the main avenues through which the political elite have systematically skimmed state coffers of money. The reason why Zimbabwean presidents travel so often is they are under pressure from their patronees.

Mugabe stayed in power through carefully cultivating a patronage system. If you within his circle, you eat all you want. It looks like Munangagwa is well on his way down the same road.

To me the adoption of the same frequent travel routine as his predecessor is a sign the The System is running Munangagwa. It is not him running the system.

There are other ways the elite rob the state such as using their authority to evade statutory payments such as duty and tax for their businesses. They normally raise 'capital' for those ventures through travelling and coming back with allowances.

A large portion of the money is wasted on social consumption - parties, bling, expensive cars and other stupid things such as pouring expensive wines on expensive watches.

What is Central Karanga In This Book

This is the cover of a book published in 1931 by the Witwatersrand University Press.

This was one year after a conference at Dadaya at which missionaries decided upon a "standard" language for the various dialects spoken in Southern Rhodesia. They decided to call that "standard" Unified Shona.

It is from that decision that the name Shona became popular. Previously it had not been commonly used.

The title of the book is "A Grammar of Central Karanga as at Present Spoken in Central Mashonaland Southern Rhodesia".

I know most people have already made subconscious and uncritical assumptions on what this Central Karanga dialect is.

What is the geographic area where this Central Karanga was spoken and what is it most likely called today? Fortunately the title of the book gives us a geographic locale. Central Mashonaland.

Now let us take a look at the provinces of Southern Rhodesia. We had Victoria Province and it is not referred to in the title of the book.

We also had Midlands province which at the time included Hartley District and Charter District. Hartley is now called Chegutu and the district Mhondoro.

Charter district is now called Chikomba with the main town being Chivhu, then called Enkeldoorn.

In short Central Mashonaland referred to Seke and Zvimba districts going northwards. The dialect being referred to as Central Karanga in this book is most likely what today we call Zezuru and may include Korekore.

However given that at the time students of Bantu languages would have been based in urban centres with little access to remote areas my guess is that this was the work of someone who did their studies from Salisbury.

How The Zimbabwe Government is Killing Industry

To make soap you need caustic soda which is imported. Organic oils are locally available. If you export soap but that government takes 85% of you hard currency and gives bond notes you will simply be out of business after a few batches because nobody outside Zimbabwe will sell you caustic soda for bond notes.

That is how government has been killing local industries. I know for a fact that Unilever, then Lever Brothers, was exporting soap and other consumables from their factory here. They actually made plans to upgrade that factory to a regional manufacturing hub for Southern, Central and East Africa.

How ever that is when Gono started his crazy monetary policies and exchange controls. Around 2000 which eventually led to hyperinflation starting around 2004. Unilever then simply upgraded the factory in Kenya and transferred engineers from Zimbabwe there. Several of my classmates were send to Kenya.

Heavy handed ignorant tactics by those in power are the main reason why the economy tanked. Where else in the world does government pass laws overnight. You wake up one morning and your goods already in customs suddenly need a permit. Or you wake and your hard currency is gone replaced with worthless numbers and paper.

Nobody in their right senses can run a business in Zimbabwe because you don't know what government is dreaming and on which side of the bed they will wake up. Only people after a very quick buck or those with massive capital who can afford to arm twist or eat together with politicians can do business here.

The startups are buried before they are born. You certainly can't plan more than a year or two ahead because government policy us fickle, unpredictable and emotional rather than logical.

Leader of The Opposition: The Facts.

Frankly speaking I do not know who Munangagwa and his foot-soldiers think they are fooling when then mention appointing an unelected person to become 'leader of the opposition' in order 'to meet commonwealth standards'.

Munangagwa's Criteria For Picking Chamisa is Unheard of in the Commonwealth

What Commonwealth standards? Let me give the example of a neighbour. The DA has been the official opposition in South Africa for a long time.

In 2009 the leader of the DA, Hellen Zille, chose to become the Premier of Western Cape provinces. That is the equivalent of governor.

She resigned her position as MP. The position of leader of the opposition in parliament was then taken over by Lindiwe Mazibuko a then serving MP. When Lindiwe Mazibuko resigned as MP the role of leader of the opposition was taken over by Mmusi Maimane who at the time was not leader of the DA. This demonstrates that leader of the opposition is current member of parliament.

In other Commonwealth countries the situation is the same. In Canada Andrew James Scheer is current member of parliament. In the United Kingdom the current Leader of the Opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, who was elected to the leadership of the Labour Party on 12 September 2015. He is also the serving member of parliament for Islington North. In New Zealand, Simon Bridges, current leader of the opposition is MP for Tauranga. In Australia William Richard Shorten is elected MP for Maribymong and elected leader of the Labour Party of Australia.

I will not mention Commonwealth countries like Rwanda and Uganda where leaders of the opposition are regularly thrown into jail.

The leader of the opposition is elected by the parliamentary caucus

Another very important factor is that in the countries I mentioned above, the leader of the opposition is elected by the parliamentary caucus of the opposition from among themselves. They are not nominated by the ruling party.

Normally the caucus elect the leader of the largest opposition party. That is because if a leader, during an election fail to win a seat, or in some cases fail to lead the party to victory, they resign. In the case of South Africa where the leader of the opposition chose another government post serving MPs were given the opportunity after being elected by parliamentary caucus.

Therefore when Munangagwa talks about leader of the opposition reserved for Chamisa, it is just dirty patronage, not a commonwealth standard. Why not give the opposition caucus in Zimbabwe parliament the opportunity to elect whoever they wish, which is the true commonwealth standard.

Chamisa is not even elected leader of the MDC Alliance. He grabbed power with the help of a violent youth militia, The Vanguard, such that most of the very same people Munangagwa is seeking to convince he is democratic, stopped or reduced sponsorship of the MDC. The British in particular were clearly not impressed with Chamisa which is why they swung towards Munangagwa. Now Munangagwa wants to go and collect garbage that has been thrown away by the British and use it to impress them.

It serves to demonstrate to those Commonwealth countries that pioneered the concept of leader of the opposition that Munangagwa and his foot-soldiers do not understand what they are talking about. Ndi vana tongoindawo. They are just band-wagoners.

If they are not band-wagoners then it is nothing but a crude and unintelligent attempt at deception.

It is certainly deception to claim that Zimbabwe will be allowed back into the Commonwealth merely because a leader of the opposition has been allowed a slot at the pigsty trough by being given government perks. The Animal Farm story does not change simply because of one pig.

Britain is currently willing to jump into bed with anything because of the pending divorce from Europe

Western countries that pushed for Zimbabwe's expulsion did so because they were peeved over the property rights of their kith and kin being taken. Farms and mineral rights. Have those property rights been restored? If anything recent American renewal of sanctions shows that little has changed in Western policy towards Zimbabwe.

The way the leader of the opposition issue has been handles betrays a shallow understanding not only of democracy, but of global politics as well.

The only saving grace Munangagwa might have is that Britain is currently willing to jump into bed with anything because of the pending divorce from Europe.

Sexist and Tribalist

For me the move to pluck Chamisa out of political oblivion and hand him government perks, also reveals a sexist and tribalist trend in Munangagwa's behaviour. Soon after the death of Tsvangirai, Munangagwa rushed to hand over party disbursement funds meant for the MDC-T to Chamisa.

He deliberately sidelined Thokozani Khupe who is a woman and ethnic Kalanga. She was the democratically elected vice president to Tsvangirai in the MDC-T. Apart from that the leadership contest of the MDC-T had not been legally settled. A sign that Chamisa would have lost that contest is that eventually he chose to form his own party, the MDC Alliance. He has not returned the money that he unfairly grabbed from the MDC-T with the help of Munangagwa led Zanu-PF.

Now Ngwena is rushing to hand over perks to Chamisa. By the Commonwealth standard he is touting, those perks should go to Thabitha Khumalo, another woman and ethnic Ndebele. However the President of Zimbabwe seems intent on dribbling past Thabitha the same way he dribbled past Thokozani.

Ingonyama: The Meaning of Trust Land.

Recently land reform has been a very hot topic in South Africa which some people threatening war over land held specifically by the Ingonyama Trust.

The Origins Of Trust Lands

Under British colonial rule land that was claimed by the British empire but had not been granted to a specific (legal) person was deemed to be held in trust by the crown. It was the Queen's land or the King's land.

Many native reserves that were prevalent in British colonies were created on such land. The trust lands system was specifically designed to deny rights to the native occupiers of the land.

Anyone who was occupying that land did so, 'upon the grace of the Crown'. That grace could be withdrawn at any time and the occupiers had no legal recourse. They could not, and still cannot, take the matter to any court. If they do, they are at an automatic disadvantage because they do not have a registered deed to prove they own the land.

On the other hand, land that was not trust land (private land), was held under deed of grant or deed of lease by (legal) persons. Such deed was registered, in jurisdictions based on British law, by an office called the registrar of deeds.

Under racist, sexist and segregationist systems that prevailed under colonialism, legal persons could only be white males or their companies. White women were not legal persons despite what many assume.

Trust Lands After Colonialism

When the British gave independence to their colonies land held in trust by the crown was handled depending on how the former colony constituted itself afterwards. Some states which continue to recognise the British crown as a leader such as Jamaica, Canada, New Zealand, Australia among others, the land is still called the Queen's land.

However note that the respective governments have got full authority over that land. Occupiers deal with their elected government, not the Queen or her Lords, when administering the land. The governments have got authority to grant title to persons on that land. That is a key difference with the Ingonyama Trust.

In those countries that chose to become republics the trust land was transferred to ownership of the state. In the case of my country when Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence from Britain in 1965, the land was taken over by government and became Tribal Trust Lands (TTLs). Upon proper independence in 1980 the land was re-christened Communal Lands but remained under ownership of the state.

The Case Of South Africa

In the case of South Africa, after gaining nominal independence in 1910, the Bantu Land Act was passed in 1913. That act created 'native reserves' in which nominal tenure was vested in chiefs. The act specifically prohibited the natives' land, at the time about 7% of the total land area, from being bought, sold, rented or used as surety (security for loans).

John Dube and Sol Plaatje (founders of what is now the ANC) cut their teeth opposing the Bantu Land Act.

The act also banned blacks from renting, sharecropping or farming on land reserved for whites. That ban is the reason why there were no black farmers in apartheid South Africa not competence as racists like to insinuate.

Under apartheid native land went through several transformations, and a slight increase, most of it eventually becoming Bantustans which the apartheid government called independent states, but nobody else in the world recognised.

The Complication of KwaZulu-Natal

Upon majority rule in 1994 bantustans were incorporated into South Africa with much of the land reverting to state ownership except for one key exception. In what was to become KwaZulu-Natal, communal land was handed over to the Ingonyama Trust.

This communal land included what had previous fallen under the former British Natal colony. It is not clear to me but it appears the Ingonyama Trust is a legal person that can sell or rent land under its control. This is a significant departure from the provisions and spirit of the original Bantu Lands Act.

It is a potential future complication that land that had not been part of Zululand or even historically part of Zulu territories, was handed over to the Zulu King. Especially given that the Zulu king is talking as if that land belongs exclusively to ethnic Zulus. Those who are not ethnic Zulus living on that land may find themselves targeted in future.

Much of the land handed over to Ingonyama Trust (South of Durban) was traditionally Xhosa land, with big portions being Sotho, Swati and Ndebele.

Tribalising the issue only complicates matters but does not solve the problem of lack of legal rights even for Zulus. It is also likely to complicate things for the Zulu king because other ethnic groups may not be comfortable with being treated as being second class to Zulus.

Already noises are being made about Umshinini Trust land, that was held in a trust recognised by the British crown before 1910.

The Risks Of Trust Land To Home Owners

There is one thing that remains the same even for Zulus. Those who have occupied and lived on that land for centuries, if not millenia, still do not have full rights to their homes and other land. As before, their rights are subject to the whims (grace is a euphimism) of a trustee.

There is always significant risk to the occupier of land held in trust on their behalf. Tinpot dictatorship is the least of them. They are subject to the whims of the trustee and I will cite examples from my home country Zimbabwe and neighbouring Botswana.

In the 1960s the Tangwena clan from the remote east of then Rhodesia were evicted from their lands by the Rhodesian government. When they resisted their homes were bulldozed. They still refused to leave and built plastic shacks. To this day a mukuku is called a chiTangwena in Zimbabwe.

More recently diamonds were discovered in Marange communal lands also in the east of Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe government forcibly removed some of the occupiers and handed over the land to various companies, most Chinese, for diamond mining. Those who were willing were relocated to an area called Odzi, which was more humane.

However the diamonds have not benefited the community and recently Zimbabwe's parliament was investigating what happen to more than US$15 billion worth of diamonds.

Still in Zimbabwe a few years back, two traditional rulers (madziShe) lost a court case, with costs, after they challenged the leasing of a hilltop that was the burial ground of ancient rulers of their clan, to a local cellphone company to build a transmitter station.

In Botswana there have been complaints about the behaviour of the trustees of what was the Tati Concession Trust. That land constitutes the entire North Eastern district of present day Botswana. There have been grumblings that Sir Seretse Khama, the first president of Botswana, entered into an agreement that benefited his family.

Corruption and Tribalism: Elephants in the Hut

The main risk of living on trust land is that the land does not belong to you. If you own a house on 300 square metres in say Daveyton, you are actually better off than Jacob Zuma and his 250 million rand Nkandla because neither the state nor a trustee can come and kick you off without a court order.

However throw in corruption and tribalism then you have dynamite with a lit fuse in your hands. In the case of Zimbabwe, Marange was handed over to the Chinese primarily because the political leaders of Zimbabwe were thrown scraps of cash. Although not worth as much as the diamonds looted, those scraps represented personal fortunes to the individuals involved.

In Botswana many complaints and even a political party, The Botswana People's Party, has been formed over the issue of Tati Concession Land. The Khama family is accused of smothering attempts to tackle it. Claims are that this is because of a personal agreement between first president of Botswana Seretse Khama and those who inherited the concession lands. Indeed the current manager of the Tati Land Board, Ogaisitse Khama ,is member of the Khama family.

What puts a hint of tribalism in the Botswana case is that the Tati Concession is on land that traditionally was occupied by the Kalanga ethnic group, who like the Venda spill into Zimbabwe. The Tati Concession was never part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate but was administered by the same British gorvenor because the other concession, the Rudd Concession (loosely the rest of Zimbabwe) was being administered by the British South Africa Company of Cecil John Rhodes. The British government felt it not proper to hand over a second concession to the company.

A few years back Botswana deported a man to Zimbabwe despite him having lived on the Botswana side of the border for 70 years. The insinuation is that the Kalanga should go back to Zimbabwe. I think the Venda of South Africa know the story very well.

In South Africa it has been reported that Ingonyama Trust has send letters demanding rent from those occupying what was previously the Umshinini Trust land. I hope those demands have got nothing to do with that those people are Xhosas not Zulus.

The Way Foward

Trust lands were created to disempower natives by denying them title to the land they lived on. Obviously the solution is to give title to the natives. Most post colonial governments shirk taking this step. Empowering natives means less political control over them, and less ability to manipulate their votes.

It is also an administratively and logistically monumental task. Every piece of land granted to a person based on occupation needs to be surveyed, disputes adjudicated and proper cadastral records established often for the very first time.

The only state that I know to have been doing this is Malawi. Villagers can apply to the ministry of lands to have their pieces of land surveyed and then be given title deeds.

I do not see how this can be done in South Africa without first transferring the land to government, the democratically elected representatives of the people. The government can then administer the granting of deeds properly and democratically.

It does not help that the language used is that of 'taking' land from Ingonyama Trust. King Zwelithini has understood, or twisted, that to mean taking land from Zulus. Yet the truth is the exact opposite of that. It is a necessary step give full land rights to all Zulus, not just one Zulu.

If the land is transferred to the KZN government, which is the elected representative of Zulus (among other ethnicities) that land will actually be under the control of all Zulus for the first time since Cetshwayo, the last independent king of the Zulu.

The South African government should take the step of giving title to individual occupiers of former communal lands.

Protect Universal Suffrage

My understanding is that our constitution is based on UNIVERSAL suffrage. That means EVERY citizen has a right to vote. That is what Zanu-PF (and PF-ZAPU) fought for, which is why one of the slogans was one man one vote.

Has our constituion now removed UNIVERSAL suffrage and replaced it with qualified suffrage. Qualified suffrage makes use of a voters roll with anyone not on there not allowed to vote.

The Rhodesian system used qualified suffrage with the qualifiying criteria being race. Later they introduced a B roll where the qualifying criteria was now property ownership for blacks. The A roll was exclusively for whites.

The property clause automatically disqualified most blacks who lived in native reserves. The property there was the Queen's Land, later Tribal trust lands. Also the Group Area act prevented blacks from owning property in areas where title deeds where issued. For the born frees Group Areas act barred blacks from owning propery in the suburbs (Waterfalls, Borrowdale, Chisipite even Southerton and Ardbennie). The areas for well to do blacks were Marimba Park in Mufakose and Old Highfield where Nkomo's house was.

So if now the constitution says someone has to be on a voters roll for them to vote, does this mean Zanu-PF has backtracked on what it fought for?

Please do not tell me that there is no qualifying criteria there is. Someone has to have money for transport and time available to go to the registration centres.

It also means gravely sick people are disqualified because someone has to be healthy enough to travel to the registration centres. If a person is bedridden or in hospital at the time of registration and inspection.

I need answers from Zanu-PF leaders, do we no longer have universal suffrage. If you say we do, please explain how the current system caters for that.

Remember universal suffrage means everyone qualifies to vote in the presidential election. It is only in the council and constituency elections where the address needs to be known for ward and constituency purposes. Even then someone can declare their intended voting ward at the time of voting. As long as they are prevented from voting in another ward (by the indellible ink) it is fine.

The proof of address requirement is a way of sneaking the property qualification used by the Rhodesians back into voting system. For you to have proof of address you need to have a property registered in your name.

Yes I do known that a letter from the headman or chief is acceptable but that means your voting right is now under the control and subject to the whims of another person. That is one of the reasons why chiefs and headman have started to increasingly assert control over the voting activities of people living in their areas. If I give you the letter (proof of address) that enables you to vote in the first place then you should do my biding shouldn't you?

At the very least I have a platform to tell you what my interests are (who to vote for) and if you do not take care of my interests why should I take care of yours? Besides the possibility of denying you proof of address next time, there are lots of other things like when drawing up lists for aid and food distribution.

Opposition parties complain about chiefs and headman influencing voters, yet they are the main advocates of a system that gives them direct power over voters.

The biometric voter registration fallacy

If you listen to the discourse coming out of Zimbabwe BVR (biometric voter registration) is a magic bullet that is going to prevent all rigging. My countrymates, not so fast. If anything the use of biometrics is going to lead to more doubt and disputes than usual.

What is biometrics.

Biometrics is the science of analysing human traits using digital techniques. The most commonly analyzed traits are fingerprints, although facial and iris recognition can also be performed.

Biometric involves capturing and digitising an image of the desired feature and than using computer procesing to store the feature or compare it to an existing database.

Compter techniques used include pattern matching and neural networks. Neural networks belong to the area of computing called artificial intelligence.

Besides biometrics neural networks are also used in other areas of image processing such as automatic number plate recognition.

In my career I have worked with both number plate recognition and biometric technology. I developed an average speed calculation system based on automatic number plate recognition. I did not say average speed enforcement, I said calculation so if you got a ticket please don't blame me.

I have worked with biometrics in identity verification and access control. That is systems that open doors and gates if you are recognised.

The first point I would like to stress is that pattern matching whether neural networrk based or otherwise, is not exact science. It is a statistical endeavour where you come up with a probable match within a certain degree of confidence. The confidence level is never ever 100%. Top of the range systems usually have a confidence level of about 95%. That is there is a 95% probability that whatever result it comes up with is correct.

If you have ever been enroled on a fingerprint system you will notice that they will always ask you to go and test your finger immediately. Every 20 or so people the enrolment will fail and they will take another sample.

The 5% probability of being wrong is not a small number. Out of 5 million voters that is 250 thousand people. Or 6 constiuencies.

Mind you that is based on ideal conditions. That is you have high quality equipment, operating in conditions that are not harsh with consistent samples.

In real life biometrics is even less accurate. In rural African conditions biometrics is even worse.

First there is usually no mains electricity. Batteries discharge and as the voltage get's lower sensors loose their accuracy. Often the roads are rough dust roads wich means equipment is shaken and contaminated with dust increasing the probability of failure.

Human features also change for various reasons. A snall cut on your finger changes your fingerprint profile. If you touch hot surfaces it may also deform your fingerprints. I have heard of people rubbing their fingers on hot irons or horplate stoves before going to the department of home affairs to apply for documents. Apparently it is a reliable way of making sure the system doesn't recognise your fingerprints if you have an unsavoury previous record.

What this boils down is that a high number of people are likely to experience problems with fingerprint matching even if they successfully registered.

If those people are allowed to vote, somebody will cry foul. If they are barred, somebody will cry foul as well. In the Zimbabwe context this means the stage is already set for the elections to be hotly disputed. Mark my words.

By far the best way of ensuring all elligible people vote and preventing double-voting is having an accurate citizen registry and using indellible ink. Of which Zimbabwe has one of the highest citizen registration coverages in Africa. Almost everyone in Zimbabwe has got an ID.

Lastly let us talk about who uses BVR in in the world. None of the technologically advanced countries who manufacture the equipment. The European countries, Russia, Russia, China - all these do not use BVR.

Only about 50 countries in the world have adopted BVR and nearly all of them are in Africa and a few other poor Asian and Latin American countries.

The reason for that is that most poor countries are run by politicians who know little about technology and thus can be easily sold duds. An example is buying snow-ploughs while being told they are graders.

The Many Injustices

On 24 May 2018 Donald Trump pardoned Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing Champion of the world. Thanks to the efforts of Hollywood 'boxing' great Rocky Bilbao, errr Sylvester Stallone.

Johnson was convicted and served 10 months in prison, in 1912, for dating a white woman.

In Trump's own words 'some might consider' this sentence to be a racial injustice. This suggest that he doesn't consider the jailing of a black man for merely dating a white woman an injustice.

Johnson's sentencing is not the only injustice that occured at the time. The murder of more than twenty people over one of his victories is another.

In 1908 Johnson defeated Canadian Tommy Burns to become the first Black World Heavyweight boxing champion.

James Jeffries, at that time considered to be the greatest boxer of all time, immediately came out of retirement to fight Johnson. In his own words, "I am going into this fight for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a negro." He was dubbed The Great White Hope who would once and for all prove the superiority of white over black.

The fight took place on 4 July 1910. Things didn't go quite as Jeffries imagined. Johnson toyed with him for much of the fight. Then in the penultimate round Jeffries was knocked down. He staggered up. He was immediately knocked out of the ring. A number of people rushed to push him back to his feet and into the ring as if to say, "get back in there and defend our race."

He was immediately knocked down a third time. Jeffries manager then jumped into the ring and stood between the boxers. As the fight was awarded to Johnson the commentator remarked that Jeffries was "the betrayer of his race."

Because of the manager's actions, Johnson's victory was classified a "technical knock out". The spin was that the white man was not actually knocked out by the black man. He had suffered a TKO because of the manager's actions. Please stop laughing.

While the fight was filmed footage was banned from being played on televisions for decades. A ban which seems to still be informally in place.

That night anti-black race riots erupted across much of America. According this article "No one knows how many died in the wake of Johnson-Jeffries fight, but records show between 11 and 26 were killed." To this date no one has been tried for those murders. Perhaps Trump might consider that an injustice. Maybe not.

The American establishment went into overdrive trying to explain away Jeffries loss and diminish Johnson victories. Jeffries was older, he had not been fighting for six years, he was out of shape were some of the justifications peddled at the time.

Mandiita Wepi

Isu tisu vomoti tiseve nemutuvi
Imi henyu muri vadyi vezangira

Isu tisu vomuita vanamukweva hundi
Imi muri vanamukuya zviyo

Hezvo nhasi moti tinanzve mambava
Imi muchisvisvina mwongo

Motiita vana mutanha nhundurwa
Imi muri vadyi vematufu

Mukati tiite vana mukuya tsine
Imi muri vatswi vomupunga

Raramo yedu yoita shambanemisodzi
Imi muri vana mukaka idziva, mutuvi ndewembwa

Isu motiita vana muumba hunza
Imi muri vana mupwanya dura

Isu vana muteya mbeva
Nzou moriga mega henyuzve

Totodanwa mazita ekuti vana Mukokotera
Imi muri vana Mugapura Hunwa

Vurombo hwayo shiri kutonhorwa nechando
Mambava akatorwa nevangwaru

Tokambaira mubani remachakwi
Motserendenda ngware dzerugare

Gogo Tsvangirai Was Perfectly Correct in Everything She Did

During the funeral of the late MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, there were several occasions when the media alleged scandal when there was none. In my opinion the real scandal was the reporters flaunting their ignorance of the late leader's culture, ChiKaranga (Shona culture).

Many of the events that were alleged to be scandals were cultural perfect and sound. The real problem was reporters trying to interpret events in Western cultural context. Tsvangira's family conducted proceedings according to Shona culture as is normal in rural Zimbabwe.

Aspects of Western culture such as prayers and the presence of church ministers are accommodated, but the foundation of everything done is paChikaranga chedu (according to our Chikaranga).

Thus below I will explain how Gogo Tsvangirai's alleged ban of Elizabeth (Tsvangirai's third wife), her refusal to leave the hearse tosit at the 'high table' and Elizabeth's travelling by road, while Susan's family member rode on the helicopter provided, were not scandalous in any manner.

The only scandal was Chamisa trying to commandeer proceedings ahead of the family. I will not bother with the MDC trying to turn the Humanikwa village into a boxing stadium. That has got nothing to do with the funeral proceedings. Or them trying to make a pyre for Thokozani Khupe out of one of the huts at the Tsvangirai homestead. (How would Thoko of Arc sound in history books? Or should it be Thoko of Buhera?)

Introducing ChiKaranga in Five Minutes

ChiKaranga or Shona culture has some very strong procedural tenets at important functions such as funeral. There are prescriptions on who gets officially informed when, for what reason, and using what method. If one of those to be informed has got grievances they can hold up proceedings while their grievances are addressed.

I am going to do my best to summarise practises at a funeral. Practises may vary from clan to clan and region to region but the general outline is very similar.

I come from Chikomba district (Chivhu) next to Buhera district where Tsvangirai comes from. Chikomba is part of Uhera (Land of the Hera clan) from which the name Buhera is derived. I can therefore safely say cultural practises in my home area are very very close to those in Tsvangirai's home area if not exactly the same.

When a family man dies (saimba) his immediate family (present wife and children) are expected to inform their elders. The most senior member of the clan (may be the father, uncles, grand-uncles or an elder cousin) is then expected to guide proceedings.

No decision is made by an individual, so this person is primarily expected to call dare remusha (family council) which will guide proceedings. The most senior clan member presides over this council and if disputes arise that member is expected to have a final say.

However let me stress that decisions are expected to be by consensus not by decree. If the biological parents of the deceased are alive, the family council defers to them in case of disputes. The council act as advisers to the parents not as imposers of decisions.

Even local traditional leaders such as (in order of rank) Sabhuku, Ishe, Mambo or Changamire (roughly English equivalents are Headman, Chief, King, Emperor)) defer to the family council. They only offer advice especially on local taboos of the region. Normally the Headman is present at every funeral.

The family council are allowed, in fact expected, to do things according to their clan traditions. The clan is roughly defined by totem (mutupo) but in practise closest members of the extended family (brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles and aunts) make the final decisions. Ideally nothing is done without consulting the family council.

Once the family council has gathered (or those members able to be present) they are expected to do certain things in an officially manner.

They have to officially inform family in-laws, that is the clan where deceased's mother comes from, in this case Mbuya Tsvangirai's clan.

The deceased's own in-laws, that is ALL families he has ever paid roora (dowry) to, also have to be officially informed. In other words the families of his past and present wives.

These families are given equal status. However in most cases families whose daughters have born the deceased children are treated with extra care. Shona culture (ChiKaranga) worships Mwari. Ancestors are an important of the communication channels to Him.

Those families whose daughters have children with the deceased are expected to make sure their own ancestral rites are done properly so that children of the deceased do not face ngozi (vengeful spirits) from the mother's side in future. That does not mean those without children are discarded. They are also treated well less they become ngozi upon the entire clan.

By the way, Mwari has got absolutely nothing to do with Jehovah and the association comes from a disputed mistranslation of the bible by missionaries.

At the rural home the body lies in state for one night in the kitchen hut of the senior wife (vahosi) no matter this wife is dead or no longer living in the village.

Besides the in-laws local traditional leaders are also officially informed.

The practice of officially sending word to someone is called kutumira shoko. It may involve physically sending a family member to the person or family to be informed. Usually they take with them a small token. In modern times some people expect this token to be cash sufficient for bus-fare but that is not a traditional requirement.

In Tsvangirai's case official word would have been send to the Zvaipa family (his mother's clan), Mhundwa family (his first wife's clan), the Karimatsenga family (Locardia's family) and the Macheka family (his current wife's clan).

As we say in Shona, "Pafa munhu hapashaikwi marehwarehwa" (Where somebody has died you will always get talking and dramatics).

The other important thing is that once members of these in-law clans have arrived, they are expected to be officially given accommodation. That practice is called "kuratidza vanatezvara imba yavo" (showing the in-laws their accommodation).

Depending on the wealth and configuration of the deceased's home and village, this may be a room in a building, or a separate homestead such as a cousin's homestead nearby.

No distinction is made among in-laws present and they are expected to share the accommodation. If several rooms are available the bereaved clan does not dictate who goes in which room, rather the in-laws may allocate the available rooms among themselves, which is almost always done by gender.

During the funeral itself all the in-laws and traditional leaders are officially informed ahead of the general public by the family council before an important step is taken.

That usually involves sending a nephew (muzukuru) to the respective accommodations who presents the word in a proper ceremonial manner. That usually amounts to adopting appropriate physical posture (kneeling or squatting), clapping of the hands and addressing the intended recipients by their totems.

The messenger is expected to return with official word to the family council which is usually "tazvinzwa itai henyu" (we have heard you, go ahead) but might be a reminder of an important rite that has been skipped.

There are many and intricate rites involved in burying a person ranging from who decides where to dig the grave (kutema rukaha), how and by whom the body is washed, certain plants and herbs may be placed in the grave.

The people who handle the body are dictated by protocol. There are also strict protocols on who accompanies a body while it is being transported. There is even rules on who sits towards the head, who sits towards the legs who sits on the right and who sits on the left.

The MDC as a party and its leaders would have had no official role in terms of Shona culture. They would belong to a group termed madzisahwira (friends). They are always given respect, often signified by being supplied with their own pot (or pots) of beer (hari yemadzisahwira). However they are not expected to interfere with proceedings or give themselves precedence over clan members.

Often the friends are dealt with through a representative of which it appears to me that the Tsvangirai clan recognised Thokozani Khupe as the representative. In normal cases that would mean word would be exchanged with the MDC through her. If anything stopped that from happening it is the MDC's own infighting and the Tsvangirai family cannot be blamed for that.

You may have had family members trying to push agendas outside and without the authority of the family council (dare remusha) but that is part of the marehwarehwa (pointless talking) that I mentioned earlier. ChiKaranga simply brushes dramatics and noise aside. It would have been a crisis if burial had been delayed by a day or more over a dispute.

Otherwise judging by the timeline, despite the marehwarehwa zvinhu zvakafamba zvakanaka (things went well despite the talking and dramatics).

I have tried my best to summarise ChiKaranga with respect to funerals. Now let me try to explain specific events that have been reported as scandalous by the media but make perfect sense in terms of culture.

Mbuya Tsvangirai's 'Ban' of Elizabeth and Chamisa

The claim that Tsvangirai's mother wanted to hang herself is not scandalous at all in terms of Shona culture. The statement that gave rise to this frenzy began with the exact words "Udza vanasekuru vako kuti ..." (Go and tell your uncles that ....).

It is clear she was addressing a nephew of the Tsvangirai clan asking him to take her message to dare rekwaTsvangirai (Tsvangirai family council). The threat to hang herself, as well as banging her mudonzvo (walking stick) on the floor, would have been meant to convey the gravity of her grievance to the family council.

In terms of culture Mbuya Tsvangirai acted perfectly she sent an appropriate messenger to the appropriate forum. What would have been unseemly is if Ambuya herself had told Elizabeth to leave, or whacked her daughter-in-law with her stick or stood in the middle of the yard shouting, something called kumira pachivanze in Shona.

By requesting the family council to address her grievances she acted in a mature and expected manner.

In terms of protocol the family council would have investigated the matter and addressed it. I am convinced that was done. They could have asked Elizabeth to apologise, pay a small token fine, or simply given Mbuya Tsvangirai an explanation.

Mbuya's Refusal To Leave the Hearse

Let me point out that a sidetrack that is ignored by media but is very much present in everyday life is witchcraft.

We all know people are murdered for body parts with albinos being specifically targeted in East Central Africa. People also do steal parts from bodies of people who die naturally. There have been several cases of mortuary workers caught selling body parts in several countries in Africa.

The body parts stolen for witchcraft purposes are not always gory and bloody items, but sometimes seemingly benign items like a little bit of hair, or nail clippings. In some cases people may simply wipe fluids from the body with cloth.

Therefore some protocols are maintained to prevent the body from being desecrated by people who want to steal its parts. When the mother accompanies the body during transportation, she would also be watching closely that nobody steals even a hair lock or a fingernail from the body.

Remember in rural areas deceased people are often transported in scotch-carts and some families cannot even afford proper coffins. So watching the body practically means not straying far from the means of transport even for a moment.

Tsvangirai's mother acted very wisely in not allowing herself to be distracted by being made to sit at a high-table leaving her son's body unattended. It would have been extremely scandalous, in Shona culture, for a mother to leave her child's body unattended to go and enjoy some good food and public limelight.

How would she explain to her own clan and the Tsvangirai clan if were to be later found that a little bit of hair had been shaved off the deceased during transportation. She would be the laughing stock of the village for years.

Elizabeth Travelling By Road

As mentioned earlier a man's in-laws are all the families he has ever paid roora to. In addition ChiKaranga stresses the welfare of children. Therefore when a person dies a sarapavana (the one who looks after the children) is always nominated. Such a person would have been appointed when Tsvangirai's first wife, Susan died.

That person is expected to fill in the role that Susan would have played during ceremonies and rites. Lest some misunderstand me that person is not an inherited wife.

In an interview with the Herald Tsvangirai's brother explained that members of the Mhundwa family (Susan's family) demanded that one of them accompany the body to his rural home. That person would have been this fill-in mother for the late wife's children or someone the family nominated for the day.

The demand would have been presented to the Tsvangirai family council who would have sought a way to accommodate it without causing a scene. According to his brother, they asked Elizabeth that since she had accompanied the body from Johannesburg to Harare, she could let the Mhundwa family's nominee accompany the body to Buhera.

Again this is a culturally very sound and diplomatic way of dealing with the situation. That is give the contenting families turns in filling a cultural role.

Keep in mind that a member of the Mhundwa family would be expected to open the late Susan's kitchen hut for the body to lie in state when it got to Buhera. The fact is she was Morgan's senior wife, vahosi. The Tsvangirai family would have considered that when dealing with the matter of who accompanies the body to Buhera.

Dai vakasiya vekwaMhundwa vainovhurirwa nani imba. If they left behind Susan's family members who was going to open her kitchen for the body to lie in state.

The Herald also reported that Elizabeth's family had been "given a room". Thus the Macheka clan where given accommodation (vakaratidzwa imba) by the Tsvangirai clan as per custom.

That means the Tsvangirai clan fully recognise the Machekas as their in-laws. Therefore paChiKaranga (in terms of Shona culture) there was no affront to Elizabeth from the Tsvangirai clan. What the media focused upon was just marehwarehwa.

The Chamisa Hearse Hijack

One last controversy that happened was when Nelson Chamisa, in his claimed capacity as MDC president, apparently commanded that the hearse carrying Tsvangirai's body be driven to a school ground where party supporters were gathered.

According to news reports he spend thirty minutes arguing one of Tsvangirai's brothers, who explained that the family where not done with their rites and needed to properly in form their in-laws.

As I explained above in-laws (vana tezvara) are very highly respected and are officially informed of every step taken by the deceased's family. What this means is that the Tsvangirai family council meets and sends an official messenger to the accommodation they would have provided for the in-laws. Carrying the body from the room where it is housed, to the body is one such important step.

This is normally the kitchen hut that belongs to the first wife, no matter she is dead. Therefore it is critical to inform her family. However all in-laws, the families of Tsvangirai's wives and that of his mother, are officially informed.

The council would wait for the messenger to come back from all families with a reply before proceeding. It is considered an insult to proceed without informing the in-laws. Worse than throwing a shoe in Iraq.

Chamisa's placing himself ahead of the family council is considered highly scandalous in culturally conservative rural Zimbabwe. So much that some Zanu-PF supporters gloated that they no longer needed to campaign in Buhera as Chamisa had done the job for them.

Madzisahwira (friends) are expected to never try and and dictate to the family at a cultural function like a funeral. Worse still madzisahwira are not expected to torch huts especially that of the deceased's mother.

That is tantamount to witchcraft. Kuroya chaiko. I am sure by now there is quite a number of unsavoury speculative theories about what Chamisa wanted to do with the body doing the rounds in rural Zimbabwe.

Mbuya Manyonda is Tsvangirai's Mother. Fulstop nga.

What insult! What afront! Maiwe!

Do the  people who are busy making the argument that Mbuya Manyonda, is not Tsvangirai's real mother have something in the containers on their shoulders or are they carrying empty calabashes? I ask this question especially of those who were brought up in the ChiKaranga culture. Or to put it in colonially doctored context, Shona culture.

It is as if my mother's niece or sister is at my funeral and then someone says, "Havasi mai vacho chaivo chaivo." You will be inviting me to jump out of the coffin and give you a mighty clap. Mbama!

Speaking as someone who is absolutely proud of my culture, I want to make it very clear that Mbuya Manyonda is perfectly within her rights to say what she wants at the funeral of HER SON. Mwana wavo. Even her nieces have the right to speak in the role of Tsvangirai's mother, no questions asked.

Those who want to adopt English culture and hold it with a long handle like a torn basket, are just exhibiting the extend of their colonial brainwashing.

Please note, I have not said anything regarding the reasons why she said what she said. I do not care about them and I do not want to know about them. They are irrelevant to the fact that Mbuya Manyonda ndimai va Morgan CHAIVO CHAIVO!

Let me say in terms of MY CULTURE which I believe is also Mbuya Manyonda's culture, there are certain roles that relatives such as vakuwasha, vana and varoora (sons-in-law, children and daughters-in-law) are expected to fulfill. Elders are perfectly within their rights to declare those who fail to fulfil those roles persona non grata. Let me add I do not know the reasons for Mai vaTsvangirai's sentiments therefore I am not going to go deeper into the topic.

Up to now I have not mentioned the MDC. Neither did Mbuya Manyonda mention the party. She mentioned her daughter-in-law (muroora wavo) and Chamisa. As to why Chamisa is being mentioned in the affairs of the Tsvangirai family, I do not know and I do not want to speculate.

I will also not presume it could only be to do with the MDC and its succession circus. It could be for other reasons as well. There is no cultural reason why Tsvangirai mother (Mai vake chaivo chaivo paChikaranga chedu) would involve herself in the party's affairs. Therefore it is very unlikely that her mention of Chamisa has something to do with his rather acrobatic leap for power.

The MDC should stop trying to impose itself on the affairs of the Tsvangirai family because of its dismal failure to manage its succession matters. They should go back to their membership for them to democratically elect their leadership and not expect the late leader's family to ordain a successor for them. Their antics so far suggest that almost their entire leadership have no clue what democracy is.

Let me take off my cultural hat and put on my hat as a liberal democrat. It no point in democracy, whether representative or direct democracy, is a person chosen for whatever role on the basis of perception or selection by an outgoing leader. I person is chosen through a fair and equitable process in which all the constituents are given an opportunity to be represented.

The constituents of a party are the membership and in terms of the MDC constitution the representative body is congress not the Tsvangirai family or social media commentators like me.

Dear African Leaders: Do Not Let Our Money Make America Great For Trump

Dear African Leaders

Recently the President of the United States of America went on record to describe our countries as shithole countries.

It is a free world. He is entitled to his opinion.

But we are entitled to our dignity, and your our leaders are the first line of defence for that.

American corporations are making billions from Africa. Oil companies are getting rich extracting oil from Nigeria, Angola, Libya among the many countries. Some of the richest companies in the world Microsft, Apple make billions from us and take the money to help make Trump what he is.

Next time you buy an iPhone or an iPad just remember that you are contributing to the salary of someone who calls you a shithole citizen.

When you click on your Windows desktop, just repeat the words, "I am a shithole, I am a shithole". Because for every Windows copy that you have bought remember you have contributed to the money that makes Donald Trump what he is.

When ever you hop into your Jeep Cherokee, Dodge or Chrysler imagine how much your have contributed to Trumps petulant ego.

It is therefore with your dignity and the dignity of the entire African people in mind, that I call upon you to think twice when you buy or use American products.

I have got no grudge against American people. Many of them are unfortunate and quite angry to find themselves under the leadership of someone who behaves as if his head is full of excreta from a goat with diarrhea. They make great friends to many of us.

But we need to make it clear that we are not happy with the insults Trump is directing our way.

Our plight is not just of our own making. Need I remind you of the colonial and slave owning activities of Trump's forefathers. Those activities made our continent a shithole, from which we are still trying to dig our way out.

We should not do so under a barrage of insults. We should not smile and chuckle when the racist mentality that led to slavery and colonialism is displayed with such unashamed abandon.

Therefore until Trump unreservedly apologizes or is out of office, let us make an effort to keep
money from shithole places from contributing to his power.

We need to show Mr Trump that we are not happy with his insults. We need to make it clear to him that African dignity matters.