Zimbabwe will not be influenced by a South African High Court ruling seeking to enforce a Sadc Tribunal order promoting white former farmers’ interests above those of resettled black Zimbabweans. The South African government yesterday also said it was still studying Pretoria High Court judge Garth Rabbie’s ruling on Thursday with a view to appealing against it.

Chief Director in the Public Diplomacy Department of International Relations and Co-operation Mr Saul Kgomotso Molobi said: "Our position is that our State attorneys are still studying the judgment and they will revert to us as to whether we should lodge an appeal or not."

Judge Rabbie ruled that a 2008 decision by the tribunal that the Government should compensate white farmers should be recognised and enforced by South Africa. The tribunal also tried to put a freeze on the land reform programme. Thursday’s judgment seeks to pave the way for the farmers to seize properties belonging to the Government of Zimbabwe in South Africa as compensation.

This includes trying to attach Air Zimbabwe planes that land in South Africa. The former commercial farmers, represented by advocacy group AfriForum, said they were now seeking a writ of execution. Zimbabwe’s Attorney-General, Mr Johannes Tomana, referred questions to Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa whose cellphone went unanswered yesterday.

A senior official in the Justice Ministry said Zimbabwe was not under the jurisdiction of South African law and Tshwane would not, in any event, act on a ruling that was criticised at Sadc Heads of State and Government level. He pointed out that less than the required two-thirds of Sadc’s membership had ratified the protocol seeking to create the tribunal and regional leaders concurred that the body had no legal force.

"The judgment flies in the face of Zimbabwe’s laws, especially Constitutional Amendment Number 17 Act and what Sadc has agreed on the matter. "When the tribunal made that ruling, we objected and the fact that we have not signed an agreement on the Sadc Tribunal means we are not bound by its decisions. "Government made its objections on the ruling. The leaders agreed that the tribunal was not properly set because it needs to be ratified by a particular number of members to make a binding ruling on a number of countries to ratify it. "More so, Zimbabwe has not signed that agreement and it means the tribunal’s ruling has no jurisdiction on us," he said.

Namibia, Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius and Lesotho are the only Sadc member-countries that have ratified the protocol and at least another five must do so before the tribunal can act legally. The Government official dismissed threats to attach State properties in South Africa.

"We have signed bilateral agreements with South Africa to protect our business interests in that country. "We are not scared. We are not even worried because it is South Africa’s duty as it is ours to protect each other’s properties."

High Court judge Justice Bharat Patel last month dismissed the tribunal’s ruling saying it could not and would not be effected in Zimbabwe. He said enforcing the ruling would be against the national interest.