of theConstitution. In that amendment to the
Constitution the Mugabe Governmentdeclared that as the indigenous people
were `unjustifiably dispossessed' ofthe land by the former colonial power,
the Zimbabwe Government has noobligation to compensate for the land, but if
the former colonial power (UKGovernment) establishes a compensation fund for
the land then the ZimbabweGovernment will make payment of compensation from
that fund subject on theprinciples regarding compensation assessment as set
out in Part II of theaforesaid Schedule. This means that if at any time the
UK Government makesfunds available for land compensation then the Zimbabwe
Government willrequire the compensation to be paid first to it, before it
gives anycompensation to the farmer.

On the other hand if the Supreme
Court decides that the amendments to theLand Acquisition Act are
unconstitutional then the Government of Zimbabwe'sactions in taking over the
farms and driving offtheindigenous people of their land?' That amendment goes on to
provide thatunless the former colonial power establishes an adequate
compensation fundfor the land, then Government of Zimbabwe has no obligation
to compensatethe farmers therefore.

The historical background of the
land situation in Zimbabwe could perhapsplace the present UK Government
under a moral if not legal obligation tocompensate for the actions of
previous British Imperial Governmentsbecause:

· In the 1890s, the
land was possibly first taken by stealth and notconquest but in any event
never paid for.

· In 1923 the sale of that land by the British Government
for 2 millionpounds to the white settlers.

· After both world wars in
1919 and 1945 the British Government includingeven a labour Government of
encouraged white settlers to come to theSouthern Rhodesia and make their
permanent homes including farms in thiscountry.

· After independence
in 1980, in accordance