Conjecture: Is It a Crime? A Visit to a Bull Fighting Rancho (Ranch)
- Janine MacSporran
- Jun 6
- 9 min read
“From Despair to Hope: Zimbabwe Breaks New Ground with Compensation Program for Displaced Farmers.” - So reads the headline on the report of the African Development Bank (AfDB) annual meeting on Zimbabwe Debt in Abidjan.
At the onset, let me be clear, the thoughts below are my own, and as a layman, my conjectures below are just that. But why not let's engage in a bit of conjecture this week?
My worst fears have been realised in that the Government is promoting globally the Farmers Compensation Agreement (FCA) as being accepted by most of us dispossessed farmers (TDHs). A legal opinion still indicates that the FCA is a component of the now legally defunct Global Compensation Deed (GCD), which has been touted as an all-encompassing agreement accepted by all those who lost their farms and their representatives. We know this is deceitful, and yet, agencies and country representatives at the annual meeting of the African Development Bank (AfDB) in Abidjan did not question it despite the published evidence to the contrary. The legally constituted Compensation Steering Committee (CSC), should be representing us at all forums regarding compensation. It has been at great pains to point out that general acceptance is just not the case, with the majority of us having rejected it. It would appear due to selective hearing, the Government happily ignores this fact. This, therefore, has probably ensured the official CSC’s recent exclusion from such events. Meanwhile, others unmandated by us are happy to “misrepresent" us at such events, even in helping promote the present deal, which deprives us of full and fair compensation for our improvements; our constitutional right. Let's leave land aside for now.
As the promoters of the FCA have sought no independent legal opinion, it would appear that at some stage, following acceptance of this agreement, still touted to be under the GCD, it will be illegal for individuals to take legal action against the Government. Does this mean you can't legally take action in the event of a default by the Government in the implementation of the FCA, and does this include any action in future regarding compensation for your land? As I said, without a full independent review of the FCA, we simply do not know. My interest was sparked by hearing that Andrew Pascoe was in attendance at this AfDB meeting and had even spoken under the guise of representing us. I was shocked, given my knowledge of his past record of misrepresenting us, at how detrimental his participation and presentation will (changed ‘could’ to ‘will’ here) be to our cause of achieving fair compensation. I will not comment on all his comments, but they can be found on the site below, which contains the AfDB record of the meeting.
I will, however, discuss two issues I have with him being there. The first being that he still represents himself as chairman of the CSC in public fora to this day, which he is not, nor is he a member. This is what is recorded in the report about Pascoe’s status.
“Andrew Pascoe, Chairman of the Compensation Steering Committee and a Former Farm Owner, provided the backstory of this historic achievement.” - AfDB report of meeting held in Abidjan.
I am led to believe he still has his farm, so is this another lie? The next issue was within his statement. Here, he is happy to overlook the fact that no legally mandated farmers' representative body had agreed to the FCA, nor the fact that he was no longer the President of the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU) or represented the TDHs.
"After almost twenty years, we as Zimbabweans had been able to put aside our differences and in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, negotiate an agreement that laid the foundation for the payment of Compensation." - Pascoe explained to the meeting.
So no mention that the majority of farmers had not accepted the offer, nor that to date less than .01% of a discounted value has been paid, nor the fact that the debt (compensation) had not been paid but instead just been kicked forward in time by means of handing over bonds rather than cash. Bonds, after all, are still a debt due for payment only at maturity. I notice no questions from the floor querying these; perhaps it was just not recorded, or more likely; “Who cares!”
It has been mentioned in the past that those who misrepresent themselves as our representatives may be opening themselves to legal recourse. There has always been the argument by the Property and Farm Compensation Association (PROFCA) that it is up to the individual to accept the terms of the FCA, despite being its facilitator and a service provider. Pretty disingenuous, I would say.
With Pascoe so openly eager to serve as the chairman of the CSC and misrepresent the facts, it reminded me of an event that occurred to me fifteen years ago. This event, which included charges of fraud, obviously sparked my interest in what was deemed as fraud and how it was being applied to me. Luckily, the courts threw the case out as a false charge. From this little knowledge, it got me thinking perhaps those who have misrepresented us have laid themselves open to litigation in the future, if not now. In my case, it was instigated when I kicked some Chinese and an ex-Minister out of my office in Zambia for trying to extort money from me. Due to this, I was to find myself arrested a few weeks later charged with assisting in fraud by what was to be a proven corrupt CID senior officer. Anyway, at a later date, I will include the details of this incident in my life story. Needless to say, the courts, when I finally got there, after many months, in fact, a year, threw the case out. Was it stressful? Yes. However, of interest, the piece of law they used in Zambia to charge me, which is based on English Law, was this;
“In English law, promoting a fraud, also known as aiding and abetting fraud, is a criminal offence, typically under the Fraud Act 2006 or related legislation. It involves participating in or contributing to fraudulent activity, either directly or indirectly.” - AI
I know that Zimbabwe is under Roman-Dutch Law, so as the events regarding our compensation occurred in that country, I looked at the law applicable there. I found it is even broader as discovered below:
“Roman-Dutch law encompasses a broader range of fraudulent activities than modern fraud, potentially including promoting a fraudulent scheme.” - AI
So, my conjecture is this: while misrepresenting oneself is not necessarily illegal in itself, it becomes illegal if used to promote a fraudulent agreement.
“Fraud” is any activity that relies on deception in order to achieve a gain. Fraud becomes a crime when it is a “knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment” - (Black’s Law Dictionary).
In other words, if you lie in order to deprive a person or organisation of their money or property, you’re committing fraud. In our case, we are being deprived of our legal right to full compensation, and the Government will gain by paying much less in real terms over an extended period rather than promptly. This deceit involves knowingly making false statements or omitting material facts. Does Pascoe and PROFCA's promoting a deal that includes bonds which will immediately lose their face value not constitute a form of fraud? I do not think their favoured statement, “It is a bad deal but this is the only deal.”, will give them protection. This is all just conjecture, of course. I wrote this on Monday and was interested that Deon Theron was thinking along these lines in a Telegram post on Tuesday morning.
"It should be understood that even if someone is legally mandated to represent you and they deceive or mislead intentionally and cause harm or loss, it can be deemed fraudulent. This I believe, is termed "fraudulent misrepresentation."-Peter McSporran
Last week, we had our old friends, Dirk and Klaske Muijs, from Zambia, staying with us. It has become a sort of annual event at this time of year. So good of them, as old friends, to make the effort to visit us here in Portugal. Once again, we headed to the Alentejo to visit the Soares family near Campo Maior, not only to enjoy their company and observe their cattle and sheep, but also to visit a fighting bull ranch. At Thomas’s suggestion, we attended a cattle auction in Portalegre. I will report on the cattle auction next week, which was very interesting, with modern technology taking centre stage. Meanwhile, some of what we learned about the breeding of fighting bulls I have recorded below.
Like many things we do in Portugal, we forget distances. It was no different this time on our trip to the bull ranch, Murteira Grave, which was approximately an hour and a half south of the Soares farm in the Mourão district, right on the Spanish border. Much of the trip to the ranch was spent driving through Spain. Unfortunately, the owner, Joaquim Grave, a trained veterinarian, was not present; however, his daughter, Johanna, and his right-hand man, João, showed us around and gave a presentation on the rearing of fighting bulls. The family has been on the ranch since 1944, and is 918 hectares, although originally much larger before inheritance division. Following the Carnation Revolution in 1974, they lost the farm, but they said it was returned to the family when the new owners failed to farm it profitably. Sound familiar? They run two hundred and fifty breeding cows, typical of this sort of ranch, with a total of seven hundred and forty animals of different ages and classes. They also keep castrated cattle of local breeds to assist in herding and moving the animals, especially the bulls, to different paddocks or handling facilities, which are more reminiscent of a game ranch than a cattle ranch. You will also find these cattle used at Portuguese bullfights, where the bull is not killed. They come into the ring at the end to calm the bull down and help escort it from the ring.
I hope I recall accurately what they told us; there was a hell of a lot to take in a few hours. We were told that the ancestry of the breed, Lidia, can be traced back to ancient times when bulls were used in the Roman games. They are from both African and European bloodlines, but are recognised as an ancient Iberian breed with unique characteristics. The breed is also known as Brava (Brave) cattle. Lidia and Brava seem to be interchangeable names. It takes many years to be recognised as a fighting bull breeder. We also learned there is no herd book, but extensive records are kept. The process of selection is heavily influenced by the maternal lines, with considerable time spent selecting suitable female breeding stock based on their temperament under test at two and a half years. This test, carried out by the breeder, is known as the ‘tienta’. The animal undergoes a process similar to bullfighting, with various other tests to assess its ferocity, temperament, and physical traits, including endurance. The selection process is rigorous, with an annual replacement rate of approximately 12%. Any animal that fails the ‘tienta’ is immediately sent for slaughter. Each ranch has a bull ring for these female tests, as well as bull classification; matadors assist in the process. Breeding cows only weigh between three hundred and four hundred kilograms and are expected to live off the grass with no supplementation, although this may not be true in times of drought, when the supplement is very high fibre.
Bulls, as they get older, are fed, hopefully achieving weights between six and eight hundred kilograms. Bulls must reach the required criteria for fighting by five years; anything over this age is slaughtered unless being retained as a stud bull. The selection of a stud bull is also a lengthy process. I thought traditional cattle breeding took time, but this process is even more extended. The selected bull for retention is given a limited number of cows in his first breeding season and then held back from breeding until his female offspring reach two and a half years and are proven to be suitable as breeding cows by passing the ‘tienta’. Only then will they introduce him to the herd as a breeding bull. As the bulls mature to the point where they are suitable for fighting, they are culled heavily based on the same traits as the cows. Anything deemed unsuitable is sent to slaughter. Once the bulls are found to be suitable, usually by three years old, they are classed 1,2 and 3. 1 is the top class bulls and will be sent to the big bull fights in the cities of Spain, Portugal and France. Class 2 may also go to the important regional venues and smaller events. Class 3, if I recall correctly, may well be used for rural bullfights, training, or at venues where the running of the bulls are held. Anything not qualifying for these classes is slaughtered. The confirmation characteristics in bulls are important. Head held high, heavy forequarters and curving horns. I have provided a brief summary, and despite our visit, I am eager to learn more about the breeding and rearing of these cattle. In Portugal, they do not kill the bull; it is sent to slaughter following the fight. Bulls are not allowed to fight twice, as they will learn from their first outing, making them extremely dangerous. However, even in Spain, if a bull shows exceptional bravery and ferocity, it may be spared and returned to the ranch to live out its life. No doubt, the pressure from animal rights groups will bring about this traditional sport's demise, despite it bringing in €1.6 billion to Spain alone, along with creating some two hundred thousand jobs.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments