By Fanuel Chinowaita | The Wasu Post
Mutasa, Manicaland — Questions are mounting over the implementation of the Irrigation Booster Kit Programme in Mutasa District after the official launch bypassed Lavastock Farm, despite the farm being formally included in the project.
The programme, under the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development, was initially planned to be launched at Lavastock Farm last week.
However, the venue was changed at the last minute, with the Minister instead taken to a different site where production is already underway.
Multiple sources within the district allege that the change was deliberate, aimed at shielding the Minister from inspecting Lavastock Farm, which has long been criticised for chronic underutilisation. The Minister has on several occasions publicly stated that he does not tolerate farmers who hold land without productively working it.
During a visit to Lavastock Farm, The Wasu Post observed that large sections of the land are lying idle. The farm is heavily overgrown with tall grass and bush, and there is no visible evidence of active cropping or organised livestock production.
The irrigation dam that should anchor the project is visibly silting up, with reduced water levels and no signs of maintenance.
In interviews with this publication, farmers at Lavastock confirmed that they took over the land in 2002 from a white commercial farmer during the land reform programme.
However, more than 20 years later, there is little to show in terms of production, infrastructure development, or sustained contribution to food security.
A senior agricultural extension officer in Mutasa District, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Lavastock has repeatedly been flagged as a non-performing farm.
“Any inspection at ministerial level would immediately raise questions,” the officer said. “The Minister’s position on idle land is well known.”
Local stakeholders allege that had the launch proceeded at Lavastock as originally planned, relocations of non-performing farmers would have been unavoidable.
Instead, the delegation was reportedly redirected to a productive site, a move critics say undermines the credibility of the Irrigation Booster Programme and weakens enforcement of government policy.
“What concerns farmers who are serious about production is that failure is being hidden,” said a local irrigator. “Programmes lose meaning when accountability is selective.”
Adding to the controversy is the visible contrast directly opposite Lavastock Farm, where a neighbouring white-owned commercial farm is fully productive and well-managed. The difference, observed by this reporter on the ground, has intensified questions around fairness and commitment in land utilisation.
Government policy, under Vision 2030, clearly states that while land reform is irreversible, productivity is non-negotiable. Analysts warn that tolerating idle land — especially within flagship programmes — risks eroding public trust and undermining food security objectives.
Stakeholders are now calling for: A transparent audit of Lavastock Farm, an assessment of all beneficiaries under the project, reallocation of land to capable and productive farmers, including youths and experienced irrigators, irrigation support based on performance rather than long-standing occupation.
As the Irrigation Booster Programme continues to roll out across the country, Lavastock Farm has emerged as a critical test of whether government’s stated zero tolerance for idle land will be applied consistently.