Whilst you cannot afford to lose, the individuals within the public organisation lose nothing personally unless their reputation/ job is at risk.

It is thus that large financial institutions and governments tend to drag matters out when ironically the larger they are, the easier it is to achieve success, simply because they attract more adverse publicity.

Again this is a commercial undertaking complete with marketing and the last person you take advice from is a lawyer because, if he were able to advise you he would be in commerce for himself and not giving you advice.

Secondly, he has different priorities, the longer he drags a matter out the more he gets paid, if its an action that will attract the media then he will want to go the expensive route of court for the fame and position, win or lose.

It is thus that the "land issue" is as yet unresolved.

In the case of the "Land Issue" this has been the prime failing of lawyers and claimants alike thus far, causing adverse publicity and harm to the proposed claim, further explained in the section on publicity below.

The history is simple and there is a need to keep it simple from the outset, UDI was declared as a demonstration against Britain giving away, giving back land to another, that had been previously purchased from them by a third party. This everyone can understand, it requires no explanation. The opposition will try to confuse the facts without you helping them.

What escapes reason is how the Zimbabwe Government became responsible for the British Governments acts of omission or negligence that caused UDI?

Was it in terms of the Lancaster House Agreement that Britain imposed on Zimbabwe? If so then I challenge the validity of the Lancaster House Agreement on the basis that Zimbabwe and the Land Owners were unrepresented. Zimbabwe was yet to be formed, The Smith Government was unrecognised and, it were possible that none of those present would be elected into any future, proposed Zimbabwe Government, to come.

Is it resultant of negotiations between the CFU, Zimbabwe Government and Britain since Independence? If so then I object because the Land Issue is about all land sold by Britain including Domestic, Commercial and Industrial worth, considerably more, than agricultural land and, the Commercial Farmers Union, is not representative of those sectors. Any opposition will assuredly raise the same point. Issues of payment of improvements by Zimbabwe and the land by Britain do not affect the claim from Britain in any way. You simply may not pass on debts to another without the consent of the beneficiary, what should happen is that Britain pay everything then negotiate part payment back, if due.

Hain in his examination before the Select Committee refers to a "massive unfairness" in the distribution of land although tries to shift the blame onto the Smith Government. Fact is, the Smith government was considered an illegal regime, unrecognised by Britain and at all times the then Rhodesia was considered British Territory. Britain failed to supply peacekeeping forces, rejected UN involvement and at the cease-fire took full responsibility.

There has never been a meeting or any negotiation between all landowners or their representatives and the British Government therefore, no previous agreement could be considered valid or binding on any landowner however, in terms of Zimbabwe Law, all witnessed undertakings on behalf of Britain are binding.

The Constitution of Zimbabwe clearly states Britain is responsible for compensation therefore in our Law they are. Britain is also responsible in International Law in that cases are heard in the law of the country where the act occurred, Zimbabwe Law becomes International Law. There is no International Constitution. Again for Britain to impose a Constitution on Zimbabwe and then object to a case being heard in terms of same, be as it may amended in part, would not exactly seem fair play.

If you consider Britain is responsible and in Zimbabwean Law they are, then, because they did not compensate you timeously they are also responsible for everything that occurred as a result of their negligence.

The Zimbabwe Government, Industry and Commerce have a damages claim of note in that through this negligence all have been financially affected. Here the British Government have effectively confessed to the damage by the issuance of such public statements as the "Land Issue" has led to the economic collapse of Zimbabwe.

There are only two ways to proceed, by negotiation or legal, the writer suggests both at once.

Negotiation has been ongoing on and off for over 35 years with consecutive British Governments. The writer had the privilege and took the opportunity at the time, of addressing in writing all members of the Select Committee on Zimbabwe via its secretary to the Chairman. Suggesting, in the event they now had a fund for the purpose, that they illustrate good faith and intention, amongst other things, by the payment of landowners direct in the event they objected to putting the Zimbabwe Government in funds for that purpose.

There can be little doubt that the matter will be dragged out until claimants are out of time or a new British Government is elected, as, if payment were going to be made, if it was the true intent, it would have happened already.

There is therefore an urgent need to address and change current publicity in Britain and the EU to reflect your compensation approach. E.g. If you continue to allow the media to portray the issue as the Mugabe Government grabbed your land without payment then this will not support your claim for compensation by Britain and you will not get publicity. The British public will sympathise and look upon any payment to you as a handout out of taxpayers money. You need British public support.

There is an urgent need to split all claimants into three groups, Zimbabwean, British and EU citizens. Whilst British and EU citizens may be theoretically the same, in this situation they will become separate parties for the purpose of publicity.

British Citizens, relatives and friends need to lobby MPs and MEPs in Britain and get their support. Involve the House of Lords, all those mentioned in my appeal on this web site home page, the news media, there needs to be pressure from every angle.

Involve any British Organisation or Body that will assist, join relatives and friends bombarding the news media with letters to the editor. All of this is free when compared with legal fees and considerably more effective.

Those other EU citizens or, those with relatives in the EU, do the same in their respective countries giving special attention to their Members of the European Parliament and those that can apply pressure like members of the relevant committees in the European Commission. It really doesnt matter what they do in the Commission they will know someone on another committee.

What we have here is a just cause that everyone will understand, and the more that know of it, the faster the payment will come.

Currently the writer is aware of research into the land issue in Kenya and Uganda and elsewhere but situations in those countries were substantially different from the position in Zimbabwe and the eventual use of such research may simply be academic.

Legal practitioners from those countries would have little to offer because over the passage of time the legal situation in such cases has changed dramatically by agreements signed and improvements in Civil and Human rights. The route of EU would have been difficult or impossible in those years and there was little precedent for utilising the route via The Hague at that time.

There is a need to divide landowners, as described in marketing, into three groups. Zimbabwe Citizens, British Citizens and EU Citizens. In this instance only the British Citizens and EU Citizens will be mobilised.

An advantage of EU committees in this situation is that there are representatives from other EU countries on board, therefore it is possible for Dutch citizens to lobby their representative, Italian theirs and so on ensuring positive outcome from the committees.

In individual member countries one could never achieve such representation within a committee illustrating the positive economic advantage to those multinationals with subsidiaries in each member country, you need to follow their lead, its less expensive.

This can also be achieved indirectly via MEP,s, where in many cases a large proportion are from opposition parties in their own member state, as is the case with the UK.

Imagine public reaction in Britain if Blair is told by the European Commission to pay out compensation and Blair supports the adoption of the European Constitution. Simply put, he either pays up now or ensures a "no" vote and his political instability.

To the writers knowledge only the Portuguese have followed this route and as their attempt is fairly recent, 1998/ 2000, it would seem applicable.

The extracts below are official translations from Portuguese. The "Associacao dos Espoliados de Angola" is referred to as AEANG below in references.

"AEANG is an association in defence of the interests of Portuguese citizens which, during the independence process, have been forced to leave the former Portuguese colony of Angola and which have therefore been deprived of their own property in that country.

The complainant stressed that the Portuguese government has made some agreements with the Angolan government in order to give compensation to citizens who suffered financial losses. Nevertheless, it appears that the Angolan authorities did not respect these agreements and all relations were therefore interrupted.

Against this background, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights against the Portuguese government claiming that it did not protect the interest of the members of AEANG."

In this kind of complaint one has to ensure that the way the complaint is formulated fulfils the "requisites of admissibility". Whereas the Angolan situation was back in 1975/6 the Zimbabwe complaint is now.

"Since the European Commission on Human Rights declared the case as not admissible because it did not fulfil the requisites of admissibility, the complainant wrote to the European Commission on the same subject-matter on March 1998, asking the institution to take actions against Portugal."

This approach against Britain is again open to Zimbabwe claimants but there is the need to be forewarned, take heed of others mistakes.

The Portuguese effort was tried in retrospect, the parties were not signatories to the Lome Agreement at that time. Secondly, take note of the following:-

Commissions Statement

"Furthermore, the Commission noted that the expropriation of property belonging to foreign citizens and the compensation for it is a matter primarily governed by national Angolan law. Thus, nationals of a country, whose property in another country is expropriated, should therefore ask for compensation in that country. It is only once all legal remedies at national level have been exhausted that they can ask for the diplomatic intervention by their own country."

Portuguese Reply

"the argument of the Commission concerning the need to exhaust all the national legal remedies before asking for diplomatic intervention of the own country was not admissible since in Angola the legal remedies referred to were not accessible."

From the outset your petition has to be clear, it has to state forcibly:-

The way to proceed is to lodge a petition with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament (Having accepted it they will pass it on to the appropriate committees, probably the Committee of Development and Co-operation and, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy.). It is easier to lodge a petition with the Committee on Petitions and get it accepted as they are a general committee.

Lodge the identical Petition to the other two committees above (European Commission on Human Rights and thereafter the European Commission.) as well, go three routes/ directions at once. I think the petitions could be lodged by email or online, I will research this possibility in due course.

I am against a class action approach as one petition could be "misplaced!" or "overlooked!", a far better approach is to copy a standard petition and submit individual petitions, it only costs the extra paper but has a far greater impact. E.g. Imagine the anticipated scenario of slowing down the passage to a committee of one petition as opposed to slowing down a thousand petitions. Again a thousand petitions have an intimidating effect on any committee to reject an individual petition could be an error and doesnt really play on your conscience, to reject a thousand petitions?

It also attracts more attention and "publicity", your key weapon. It is also possible to send petitions in two groups, amending/ addressing any shortcomings in the second submission.

Replies should only take two months and at say five or six weeks you lodge a complaint, if necessary, with the Euro Ombudsman which will be relayed by him to the President of the European Commission. (This applies more pressure, "go for the jobs" as described in "rules of engagement" its about your life, your living, dont give anyone the chance to drag it out until the next British Government)

Below is an extract from an investigation of the Euro Ombudsman by way of explanation, its a way of preventing the "dragging out" of your claim or complaint.

"2.4 Principles of good administrative behaviour require the administration to properly reply to the queries of citizens and inform them on the follow-up given to their complaints. In the complaint form published by the Commission in the Community Official Journal in 1989 ("Complaint to the Commission of the European Commission for Failure to comply with Community provisions"), reference is made to a number of administrative safeguards which the institution undertakes to respect for the complainant's benefit. These safeguards include:

"- an acknowledgement of receipt will be sent to the complainant as soon as the complaint is registered.
- the complainant will be informed of the action taken in response to his complaint, including representations made to the national authorities Community bodies or undertakings concerned.
- the complainant will be informed of any infringement proceedings that the Commission intends to institute against a Member State as a result of the complaint ".

This is the kind of decision (below) you may expect which seriously effects a government employees career and ensures efficiency, you have an excellent case it just needs a small push.

"On the basis of the information in possession of the Ombudsman, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the complainant's letter on 16 June 1998. However, it appears that the institution, despite the content of its reply, did not keep the complainant informed of the outcome of his case. The Ombudsman considers, therefore, that such failure of the Commission constitutes an instance of maladministration."

Here Zimbabwean and EU citizens will be at the forefront. If it is seen to be a case of British Nationals suing Britain it will likely be referred to the British Courts.

Zimbabwe law must be used as the Zimbabwean Constitution ensures a win, Britain are already liable in terms of it.

It is appreciated that certain lawyers refer to International Law but to my knowledge and within my research there has yet to be an International Constitution adopted. Again, recently, Libyans were tried in terms of Scottish Law because it happened in Scotland (If any lawyer advises differently ask why Scottish Law was used and if he could give you a copy of the International Constitution).

If a country can require nationals of another country to be tried in terms of their law in the International Court then, with respect, Zimbabwean nationals should be able to try another Government in terms of Zimbabwean Law. It may be that an argument is raised that this is a civil matter, its not, at best its "criminal negligence", and you take a civil, criminal action in that respect.

It is likely that a Zimbabwe Judge will be appointed to the Hague as an expert in Zimbabwe Law and you may require a letter of "no interest" from the Attorney General in Zimbabwe.

Legal representation should be from South Africa preferably at least one who is conversant with the Dutch language, this is always a behind the scenes advantage in Holland.

The advantage of Zimbabwe Law is that effectively you have two chances of success, Britain will have to challenge the validity of the Amendment to the Constitution and I dont believe they will succeed because challenging the Laws of the prosecuting country would seem inappropriate in an International Court.

In any event it would be political suicide for Blair because, by so doing, it would embarrass the British Government. The pressure should ensure a compensation fund of note.

Again, It will be an embarrassment for Britain to challenge the validity of the constitution it effectively imposed on Zimbabwe.

It will be the first time in living history that any British government has received an International Summons for a criminal act, the objective of publicity will be achieved. A court case is not going to happen.

Again the writer is against a class action approach. What would be far more effective is to submit individual claims and let the court join them into a class action.

Imagine a couple of thousand summonses against Tony Blair and his government for criminal negligence and damages. Imagine the publicity and the difficulty for the Judges to join the actions into one.

The summonses could be the same format just with a different Plaintiff, claims will have to be submitted independently anyway. Dont make a joint claim as this could limit others and will be negotiated down, its much harder to negotiate down a mass of individual claims.

An excellent commercial and legal tactic could be to get a team of lawyers in the background to draft a common summons and claim form encompassing everything allowable in terms of British Law. You sue in Zimbabwe Law but use the quantum allowable in terms of British Law in pounds sterling.

I say in the background because to cut costs, increase publicity and legal advantage, it would be better to submit the claims as self-actors. The Judges in such a situation are bound to "sway towards" you and will have the entire world watching them to ensure that happens.

It will be a case of individuals divested of everything versus one of the most powerful countries in the world, you cant lose with the Judges helping you, and, they have to be seen to be doing that. Conversely, the opposition cant make complaint that the Judges were biased towards you and hostile to them.

Just say you are not eligible for Legal Aid in Zimbabwe and, certainly not in the quantum required for the case in hand, if pressured to appoint legal representation. If offered free representation say that they are not expert in Zimbabwe Law, even if they were allowed to act, which leads to another legal precedent concerning the admissibility of any foreign lawyers in terms of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981.

As an individual, I might be tempted, either during the proceedings or as they introduced themselves to the Judges at the outset, to request the opposition lawyers be removed from the Court. Complaining, that the matter was being heard in terms of Zimbabwe Law, and that, in terms of that law, they need to be admitted, be given permission to practice. That their clear role when facing a self-actor, was to be independent, to advise me as well. That if they had no expertise in Zimbabwe Law how could they fulfil that role? There is reference made to this position in a Zimbabwe Supreme Court Judgement.

It would be beyond the dignity of the Blair Government to visit Zimbabwe to appoint a lawyer, if they were left without representation it would be a win.

Initially you dont even have to speak, its just submitting documents, in such a situation any lawyer will advise the opposition to make instant offers of settlement as even legal precedents are likely to be over-ruled by the Judges in your favour.

Experienced Lawyers would not like to face self actors in an International case, there is no fame and the possibility of ridicule. Any Lawyer will want to represent you for the fame but, if you are paying, you give the instructions and you tell him he just assists in the background.

The way described above is the only way to guarantee a win if it goes to court, many honest lawyers will concede the point although mayhap, reluctant to comment mindful of legal ethics.

As, even those world-class lawyers representing the opposition are bound to be impartial, in the middle, so to speak, giving you advice and thus you have effectively neutralised the opposition from the outset. Your case will be judged on merit, on morals, as opposed to legal precedent and technicality, a legal nightmare for any opposition lawyer.

A simple summons in Zimbabwe Law is inexpensive, details of the claim can follow, again as the writer researches further and by request he may place examples of the format required although standard layout as required in our High Court with the appropriate heading change should suffice.

If acting as a layman the Court has to give you "latitude" and "leeway" in this regard. It is important that both a) and b) routes are followed simultaneously to apply maximum pressure to achieve rapid results. A trial is exceptionally unlikely, especially if the oppositions lawyers note from the summons they will be facing self actors, laymen, it would be political suicide for the Blair Government and that will be their advice.

As already described above the webmaster favours independent claims, that way those landowners of different nationality and others can follow, join in later.

There is a need to get information from the UK on certain aspects and financial formulae although this is not essential.(Average compensation limits for pain and suffering, relocation, valuations etc.)

The best person to assess your damages claim is of course a qualified accountant, those accounting firms with internationally known names and connections would of course take preference.

It would be better to push for a revolving fund in your petitions and actions, in fact, it is the issue of quantum requirement in the fund that has been the delaying factor for compensation and decision making in the past.

As already described above it would be to your advantage to get good legal representation working for you in the background, preferably from South Africa with a sound knowledge of Zimbabwe Law.

It is likely that there will be a settlement at the outset but, if not, it is important that the grounds for the legal presentation of you claim are professionally described.

There is a need for much thought and discussion on the tactics of presentation but, if your written presentation is good, it may be a good plan to remain as self actors refraining from giving personal evidence unless required by a Judge to do so, until witnesses are subpoenaed like say Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Lord Carrington, Tony Blair etc. Then bring in a lawyer, the best South Africa has to offer to cross examine them. That way you get the best results.

The above is only to be taken as the writers opinion at this time and there is a need for much thought and consideration. One thing certain, is that a Zimbabwean Lawyer would be a disadvantage.