EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 152 It further held that if the petitioners had been aggrieved by the Council resolution, they could appeal against the decision to the President of Zimbabwe in terms of Section 8(4) of the Communal Lands Act. 41. Although the Complainant’s letter of appeal to the President indicates that the appeal was also lodged at the Ministry of Local Government and National Housing, the Ministry contends that the appeal cannot be traced. 42. According to the Respondent State the Communication does not reveal any prima-facie violation of the rights and freedoms other than general averments of violations of the African Charter. 43. The Respondent State submits that the land dispute is entirely between two private persons or group of persons and that it suspects that the submission of the Communication to the Commission is nothing more than a ploy to portray the petitioners as victims of the clean-up operation “Murambatsvina” undertaken by the Government in June 2005, as nowhere in the Complaint has it been shown that the Government had a hand in the alleged “impoverishment” of the Complainants. 44. The Respondent State holds that the evictions are not “forced evictions” effected by the state but rather “legal evictions” carried out after following due process of law. 45. According to the Respondent State, the evictions were carried out in terms of the Communal Lands Acts read with the Regional, Town and Council Planning Act, and that the Buhera District Council is an autonomous body corporate with a distinct locus standi from the State of Zimbabwe and does not fall under the direction and control of the Government. This according to the Respondent State explains why in all the civil suits between the parties the Complainant never cited any Government Minister or Government Organ. 46. The Respondent State further argues that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies as they have appealed to the President in terms of Section 8(4) of the Communal Lands Act, which is an administrative (not Executive) procedure to be exercised by the President, and from which, if still aggrieved, they could approach the High Court for judicial review of the President’s decision. The Respondent State further avers that the Supreme Court could have been approached for relief on the basis of Section 24(2) of the Constitution. 47. The Respondent State further submits that the Complainant portrays a picture of the President who is not bound by anything but his unfettered discretion in deciding the dispute, while the President like any other administrative body, would be bound to follow the rules of natural justice. If these rules were not followed, then the petitioners could always approach the courts for judicial