New Zimbabwe
Britain
urged to halt Zimbabwe deportations
By Staff Reporter
Last updated: 12/15/2004 16:44:23 Last updated: 12/15/2004
12:22:39
BRITAIN was last night accused of "engaging in a costly blood sport with
human lives" as Zimbabweans planned a huge demonstration at noon today
protesting the deportation of asylum seekers.
A group of Zimbabweans
leading the protests said they were "dismayed and outraged" at the deportations
which hit top gear this week with several raids at properties across
Britain.
"Zimbabwean exiles are both
dismayed and outraged at this immoral policy by a government which on a daily
basis condemns the excesses of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical regime," the group
said in a statement. "On one hand, the British government admits that 'future
prospects in Zimbabwe are not good', and on the other, Zimbabweans seeking the
protection of Britain are being sacrificed in the most reckless fashion and in
total defiance of standing international laws on refugees."
The group seized on comments
by Junior Foreign Minister Chris Mullin in the House of Commons on Tuesday as
evidence that the British policy on deportations was at odds with the
government's view of President Robert Mugabe's regime.
Mullin said: "The people of
Zimbabwe are regrettably at the mercy at the moment of a very rotten Government.
It is true that for the immediate future the prospects in Zimbabwe are not
good.”
The Zimbabwe group also
warned British authorities that the heavy-handedness displayed by immigration
officers and the police during the removals would cause Zimbabweans in
government accommodation to go underground.
"The actions of the British
Immigration Department and the Police to raid women and children in the wee
hours of the morning and herd them into waiting trucks as if they were
terrorists will breed a new group of Zimbabweans who are hostile to law
enforcement," they said. "Many other Zimbabweans will flee their
government-provided accommodation and stop reporting to the police. Life on the
run in Britain is better than life in Mugabe’s jails and torture
chambers."
Refugee agencies and human
rights groups have roundly condemned the British government for resuming the
deportations which had been suspended for two years pending political reforms in
Zimbabwe.
Those reforms are yet to
happen and President Mugabe is still firmly in power. On Tuesday, his government
continued its crackdown on the opposition with the arrest of Glen View MP Paul
Madzore. Just this week, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change said
seven Members of Parliament, 53 party officials and hundreds of activists had
been subjected to arrest, intimidation, beatings and torture since
January.
Arthur Molife, one of the
organisers of the demo said last night: "Zimbabweans should seize this moment to
send a clear and loud message to the British government that this policy is
unwise and immoral. These deportations affect everyone and if we don't stand up
in unison, we are all doomed."
DEMONSTRATION
DETAILS:
Starting at noon on Wednesday, demonstrators will converge
at the Zimbabwe embassy in London before heading for 10 Downing Street and the
Foreign Office where a petition will be handed over to the Prime Minister's
representatives.
1200 hrs at Zimbabwe House, 429
Strand, London. Near Charing Cross Station.
1400 hrs: We
depart from Zimbabwe House past South Africa House, Trafalgar
Square and
then head for No: 10 Downing Street and then to the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office and end up at Parliament Square.
Nearest Tube
Stations: - Embankment: (Bakerloo, District & Northern
Lines).
Charing
Cross: (Bakerloo & Northern Lines).
British Rail
Station: Charing Cross.
There are numerous Bus Routes past
Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross Station: 3,
6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 23, 24, 29, 53, 77, 77a 88, 91, 176, 453 to mention a
few.
For more information:
Contact Numbers are: - 07960126028. 07969449760.
07916155604. 07958015610
New Zimbabwe.com accepts no
responsibility for errors or changes to this programme
Zim Online
MUGABE TO POST PROPAGANDA CHIEF TO UN
Wed 15 December
2004
HARARE - President Robert Mugabe will reassign his abrasive
information
minister and propaganda chief, Jonathan Moyo, to a top
diplomatic post,
possibly as Zimbabwe's new ambassador to the United Nations
(UN), sources
told ZimOnline yesterday.
The sources said other
senior ruling ZANU PF party leaders, long angry
with Moyo over what they
perceive as his arrogance and disrespectful manner,
had taken advantage of
his fallout with Mugabe to push for his dismissal
from the government
altogether.
The senior ZANU PF leaders, who the sources said
include party and
state First Vice-President Joseph Msika and chairman, John
Nkomo, wanted
Moyo replaced by his permanent secretary and long-time Mugabe
spokesman,
George Charamba.
"The President (Mugabe) agrees to
stern measures against Moyo but he
feels he can benefit from his
combativeness and hardworking nature by
tasking him to defend his policies
at the UN," a senior ZANU PF official
said yesterday.
According
to the party official, who did not want to be named, Moyo
was likely to
replace Boniface Chidyausiku as Zimbabwe's ambassador at the
UN only after
the March 2005 election.
"He (Mugabe) will keep Moyo here until
after March because he knows he
needs him for the election," the official
said.
Mugabe, who two weeks ago blocked Moyo's nomination to ZANU
PF's
central committee, is expected to punish him further by dropping him
from
the party's inner politburo cabinet on Friday.
Until three
weeks ago, Moyo was one of Mugabe's most powerful and
trusted confidantes.
But the two fell out after Moyo led a secret plot to
block plans by Mugabe
to appoint Joyce Mujuru as the second vice-president
of ZANU
PF.
Mugabe, who publicly voiced his displeasure with Moyo, has
since
suspended six of ZANU PF's 10 provincial chairmen because they had
worked
with Moyo in his plot to scupper the appointment of
Mujuru.
Mujuru, who has since been appointed state second
vice-president is
now firmly positioned to succeed Mugabe as ZANU PF and
possibly Zimbabwe's
president given that Mugabe and Msika are set to retire
at the same time in
2008.
According to the sources,
parliamentary speaker Emmerson Mnangagwa,
whom Moyo wanted appointed
vice-president was however going to keep his job
as ZANU PF's secretary for
administration and possibly at Parliament as
well.
A fierce
proponent for democracy and arch-critic of Mugabe, Moyo
swapped sides in
1999 to become the chief defender of the Zimbabwean leader
and his
policies.
Appointed information minister in 2000, Moyo has in the
last four
years crafted tough media laws that have seen hundreds of
journalists jailed
and three newspapers including Zimbabwe's biggest and
only independent daily
paper, the Daily News, shut down. - ZimOnline
Zim Online
Army to slash troops
Wed 15 December 2004
HARARE - The Zimbabwe Defence Force (ZDF) is considering massive troop
cuts
because it has no cash to pay its about 45 000 soldiers, defence
ministry
permanent secretary Trust Maphosa told a parliamentary committee
last
week.
In a closed session with Parliament's Committee on Defence,
Maphosa
said the cash-strapped ZDF was also relying on antiquated equipment
inherited from guerrilla movements that fought for independence under
President Robert Mugabe and the late Vice-President Joshua Nkomo and from
the former colonial army.
According to the defence official,
the government was now considering
retiring some of its soldiers into
reserve troops only called up when need
arose. "The Ministry was exploring
possibilities of moving to the
reservist system. (The ministry) wished to
have a small, well-trained,
well-equipped and well-administered army,"
Maphosa told the parliamentary
committee according to a record of the
meeting leaked to ZimOnline.
"The Ministry of Defence needs new
equipment because it is using old
equipment which was inherited from ZANLA,
ZIPRA and the colonial era," said
the defence official, who was pleading
with the parliamentary committee for
more money to be allocated to the
country's army and air force.
ZANLA was Mugabe's guerrilla army
while ZIPRA was commanded by Nkomo.
The Defence Ministry was
allocated $3 trillion under the 2005 national
budget tabled in Parliament
last month by acting Finance Minister Herbert
Murerwa - the second highest
vote after the Ministry of Education, Sport and
Culture.
Besides its cash problems, an arms embargo imposed on Zimbabwe by the
European Union, United States, Switzerland, Australia and Canada over
Harare's failure to uphold human rights, democracy and its controversial
land policies have helped cripple the ZDF.
The ZDF has sourced
some of its equipment from China and other former
Eastern bloc countries but
still has a huge Western-manufactured arsenal for
which it can no longer get
spares.
Zimbabwe's army is said to have lost weapons and equipment
worth
billions of dollars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where it was
helping that country's government fight off an armed rebellion that was
backed by Uganda and Rwanda. - ZimOnline
Zim Online
Government, business, labour resume talks
Wed 15 December
2004
HARARE - The government, business community and the Zimbabwe Congress
of
Trade Unions (ZCTU) resume dialogue today in a desperate bid to cobble up
a
solution to economic hardships afflicting both business and labour
alike.
The tripartite talks acrimoniously broke up 21 months ago
after the
government sharply raised fuel prices to save its ailing and
corruption-riddled National Oil Company of Zimbabwe - which was solely in
charge of fuel supplies then - without consulting business and
labour.
ZCTU secretary general Wellington Chibhebhe told ZimOnline
that the
talks at which the three parties discuss solutions to pressing
economic
problems such as inflation and the ever-rising cost of living were
only
resuming after the intervention of the International Labour
Organisation
(ILO).
Chibhebhe said: "The ILO director for
social dialogue had to come here
in October to assist in the dialogue. I am
sure the Minister of Labour (Paul
Mangwana) learnt one or two things on the
importance of dialogue, not to
mislead the nation as he was doing earlier in
the year."
The Employers Confederation of Zimbabwe, which
represents business,
also confirmed yesterday that it will be represented at
today's meeting.
Finance Minister Herbert Murerwa, Trade Minister
Simbarashe
Mumbengegwi and Mangwana are expected to represent the government
side.
The Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions, a surrogate of the
ruling
ZANU PF party set up by the party after tripartite dialogue collapsed
last
year, is also expected to attend today's talks.
Besides
discussing labour and business issues, today's talks will also
discuss
issues of governance that must be addressed to facilitate the
revival of
Zimbabwe's crumbling economy. - ZimOnline
Zim Online
Opposition legislator arrested
Wed 15 December 2004
HARARE - Police yesterday arrested opposition Movement for Democratic
Change
(MDC) party legislator Paul Madzore at the party's Harvest House
headquarters in the capital.
Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena
could not be reached for
clarification on the arrest of Madzore who is
Member of Parliament (MP) for
Glen View constituency in Harare.
MDC spokesman Paul Themba Nyathi said the party was unsure yet about
the
reasons for Madzore's arrest.
Police sources told ZimOnline that
Madzore was arrested in connection
with violent clashes between ruling ZANU
PF party and MDC supporters in Glen
View last Sunday after a meeting the MP
had addressed in the constituency.
Political violence is on the
increase in Zimbabwe as the country draws
closer to a crucial general
election scheduled for March 2005. The MDC has
said it will not contest the
ballot unless Zimbabwe's electoral laws were
democratised and political
violence ended. - ZimOnline
JUSTICE FOR AGRICULTURE OPEN LETTER FORUM, 14th December 2004 OLF No.
318
Email: jag@mango.zw; justiceforagriculture@zol.co.zw
Internet:
www.justiceforagriculture.com
Please
send any material for publication in the Open Letter Forum to:
jag@mango.zw with subject line "For Open Letter
Forum".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought
for the Day:
"The European nations should have only one objective, to
spread throughout
the entire world the priniples of justice revealed by
Christianity, for the
emancipation and happiness of all mankind." a
reporter. 1882 (Revue des
Deux Mondes - March to April
1977)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter
1: copy sent to TESCOS, received 12 December 2004
Dear
Sir/Madam
Subject: TES17515X
I have just read, with incredulity, a
communication written by one Sue
Shearer of your Team Tesco Customer Service
about Tesco's sale of produce
from Zimbabwe. The communication was
re-printed on the Zimbabwe Justice
for Agriculture website on 9
November.
Correspondents had raised concerns about the actual origin of
mange tout
sold in Tesco from Zimbabwe. It was their suspicion that the
mange-tout
was grown on land seized from its owners by the Mugabe regime. If
this
were to be the case then Tesco would, de facto, be subsidizing
and
endorsing Mugabe's theft of land, his destruction of his country's
economy
and his impoverishment of the Zimbabwean people. The occupation of
land by
Mugabe's thugs is not only contrary to universally accepted standards
on
human rights but is, in most areas, even illegal under Mugabe's own
twisted
laws.
Your Ms Shearer's reaction to this charge showed an
astonishing lack of
insight and of sensitivity. She wrote: 'we work with
four suppliers who
are all involved with the government at the highest
level.' I cannot
believe that there is another organization of the size of
Tesco in Europe
or beyond that has actually boasted of its links to Mugabe's
ZANU regime in
five years or more. That line alone justifies an indefinite
boycott of
Tesco by my extended family and by any decent, reasonable person.
Ms
Shearer goes on to say: 'If we ever decided to pull out, it would cause
a
major deficit to the income of the area, causing it to revert to a
Third
World State.' Over the past five years Mugabe's destructive
and
self-serving policies have made Zimbabwe the most third-world of all
third
world states characterized by merciless poverty, economic collapse
and
agricultural decay. Does Ms Shearer really not know this? Furthermore
the
main actor for this has been Mugabe's so-called 'Fast Track' land
reform
program which, it seems, Tesco endorses.
Ms Shearer's
communication then ventures even further into the surreal:
'our growers in
Zimbabwe provide much-needed jobs for many people.we work
extensively with
the ETI to ensure worker' welfare is maintained and
regular meetings are held
to discuss the wider political situation.' It may
be that a small group of
workers in Zimbabwe do benefit from Tesco's
patronage. But they, sadly, must
count for little against the millions
displaced and rendered jobless by
Mugabe's Fast Track. There can be no
defence in the employment of 500 or
1000 people if that employment is part
of a program responsible for
immeasurably wider hardship. As for the
regular meetings to discuss the
wider political situation: are these
pastoral affairs ones within which
workers can stand up and criticize the
ZANU PF government? Of course they
are not. To wheel such a defense onto
the field is in appalling
taste.
Subsequently a letter from one Jillian Burns, again of your
customer
services staff, (reference TES17515X) was posted on the Justice
for
Agriculture website on 10 November. This was a more coherent letter
and
did claim that Tesco had no further dealings with Kondozi Farm and did
not
support illegal farm seizure. It did concede that Tesco was 'working
with'
growers who were 'working under constant threats.' This was an
improvement
upon Sue Shearer's letter. Indeed it seemed to directly
contradict it and
I am forced to wonder which communications reflected
Tesco's true position.
Do you now disassociate yourself from the Shearer
letter? Will you do so
publicly?
Whether you do or not, the Burns
letter still does not go nearly far enough
and leaves considerable room for
doubt.
There is but one statement that Tesco can make to resolve this
matter and
it goes as follows:
'We are able to confirm that all Tesco
products from Zimbabwe are produced
on land which is owned by the producer or
upon which the owner has freely
and without pressure agreed that the crops
might be produced. Tesco
officers, visiting Zimbabwe, have visited the
growers and have either:
Confirmed that they are in fact the registered
owners of the land through
scrutiny of original title deeds
or
Confirmed that those who the title deeds show to be the owners of the
land
have given formal and legal agreement, obtained without any
inappropriate
pressure of any kind, that the product may be produced on that
land.
The properties upon which a Tesco product is grown are: X farm, Y
farm, Z
farm.'
If you can do that, or something like it, then I would
suggest you do so at
the earliest possible opportunity. If you cannot I
would be grateful for
an appropriate explanation. Should I not receive such
an explanation I
will write to your board of directors until such an
explanation is
forthcoming. Should such also prove unproductive then I will
be obliged to
assume that your operations in Zimbabwe are essentially
indefensible and
will seek, with others, to organize the maximum possible
public exposure of
same.
Yours faithfully
John
Hickson
2. LETTER: Termites amongst us, received 11 December
2004
Dear Family and Friends,
It is just weeks now until
Zimbabwe's parliamentary elections and to be
honest, things are not looking
at all good. The opposition MDC have still
not said if they are going to
participate in the polls and the electoral
playing field has not shown any
signs of improving and this week 3 more
pieces of repressive legislation were
rammed through parliament.
There is little doubt that all is not well
within ZANU PF as we approach
the elections and in-fighting and power
struggles seem to be the order of
the day. Zimbabweans have been watching
with widening eyes and growing
amusement as even the state media has been
reporting on "plots", "secrets
meetings", "the tug of war for succession",
and "the night of the long
knives". For a change none of these dire and dirty
deeds are being
committed by our usual enemies who the State say are The
British, The
Americans, The Rhodesians, The Selous Scouts or The Neo
Colonialists, but
this time the evil doers are people within Zanu PF itself.
The most graphic
way to describe the atmosphere is to give you some of the
more quotable
quotes from the just ended ZANU PF Congress and leave you to
draw your own
conclusions.
At the opening of the ZANU PF congress,
Reverend Obediah Musindo set the
tone by saying: "It's my prayer that
President Mugabe should live longer to
deliver us to the promised
land."
Vice President Joseph Msika said about suggestions that President
Mugabe
should step down: "Mugabe go? Go Where? He should rule even if it
means he
is walking with the aid of a walking stick. He is the father of our
nation;
he is entitled to rule us forever."
President Mugabe speaking
about the top party officials he suspended
because they tried to oppose the
appointment of Joyce Mujuru at a secret
meeting in Tsholotsho: "minds that
can be bought, hearts that can be sold,
are political prostitutes. This party
has no room for political
prostitutes."
Jonathon Moyo's response to
accusations about the secret meeting at
Tsholotsho : "Ugly lies" , "pure
fiction". "It was a mere speech and prize
giving ceremony."
Enos
Chikowore reporting on Zimbabwe's top ministers and politicians who
grabbed
multiple farms: "Top members of the party ignored even calls by
the
presidency to surrender the extra farms." "There are termites within
our
party, they are not people."
Enos Chikowore reporting on the
dismal production on Zimbabwe's grabbed
farms: "I am calling for attitudinal
change within our newly resettled
farmers. Under the regime of Ian Smith and
up to 1999, 4000 white farmers
produced enough food for the nation and had
more left over for export.
Today, after the land reform programme, there are
over 12 000 farmers (A2)
but they are failing to do what their predecessors
did."
And, to anyone who thinks Zimbabwe has a chance of a free and fair
election
in March, we wonder why the budgetary allocation to the CIO (secret
police)
has just been increased from 62 billion dollars this year to 395,8
billion
for the coming year.
Until next week,
love
cathy.
3. LETTER: CONTACT FOR MR SHARON of Oxford Farm
Banket
Please can anybody help.
I am wanting to contact Mr Sharon from
Oxford Farm in Banket.
Contact Tisha on 705551/3 or e-mail mclinton@ecoweb.co.zw
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All
letters published on the open Letter Forum are the views and opinions
of the
submitters,
and do not represent the official viewpoint of Justice for
Agriculture.
Navy denies mutiny as ship returns without its captain
Jamie Wilson and
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday December 15, 2004
The Guardian
If
the forecasters are right, the sun will be shining when HMS Somerset
makes
its way up the English Channel and into the naval docks at Devonport
tomorrow morning after an arduous six-month tour of duty patrolling the
perilous waters off the coast of Iraq.
But there will still be a large
black cloud hanging over the ship and its
company after navy chiefs took a
step unprecedented in modern times -
ordering the captain of a warship to
hand over his command and ordering him
home to face allegations of bullying
and intimidation.
Reports that the conduct of Commander David Axon had
led to a near mutiny on
board the Type 23 frigate have lent the unfolding
drama the air of a bygone
age, when captains would be tossed overboard by
disgruntled crew members.
But instead of finding himself adrift at sea,
the captain of HMS Somerset is
back in Britain where he is preparing to put
his case to a Royal Navy
inquiry after an equal opportunities investigation
was instigated following
a complaint from a junior officer.
According
to yesterday's Sun the skipper is accused of operating a brutal
style of
management, ridiculing and belittling junior officers. The
newspaper said
navy chiefs feared a potential mutiny, and quoted a navy
source saying:
"There was a dangerous situation brewing on the ship."
Yesterday the
Ministry of Defence was characteristically reticent about
revealing the
precise nature of the allegations, other than to say there was
no indication
that they were racist, sexist or physical in nature. "It seems
to have been
along the lines of verbal intimidation rather than anything
else," a source
told the Guardian.
But the MoD did deny talk of a rebellion. "There has
been no question of a
mutiny on board HMS Somerset," a spokesman
said.
The maritime drama began to unfold in late November when a male junior
officer made a complaint about the conduct of Cmdr Axon. A Royal Navy
investigations team was dispatched and met up with the ship when it next put
ashore in the Italian port of Civitavecchia, near Rome.
By now
another junior officer, this time a female, had also filed a
complaint
against the captain. The investigation team are understood to have
interviewed members of the crew, including both of those who filed
complaints, before returning to the UK to file their report.
By the
time their findings reached naval high command, HMS Somerset had
already
sailed, and was making its way down the Adriatic into the
Mediterranean,
towards Gibraltar, the ship's final port of call.
The MoD refused to
reveal what the report said yesterday, but it was clearly
incendiary enough
for the navy to take the almost unprecedented step of
ordering Cmdr Axon to
hand over command to the executive officer - his No
2 - and return to the UK
at the earliest opportunity.
That arose when HMS Somerset stopped to
refuel and take on supplies in
Gibraltar. Cmdr Axon flew back to Britain and
is now on leave.
Yesterday there was no sign of him at his semi-detached
house in Southsea,
where he lives with his partner Gail, a naval
barrister.
Born in Leicester, Cmdr Axon was raised and educated in
Zimbabwe and South
Africa. He returned to England to join the Royal Navy in
1986, serving on
board the Royal Yacht Britannia and several other ships
before being
selected for command in 2000. Now in his 40s, he took over HMS
Somerset in
December last year.
According to his homepage on the
ship's website (which yesterday made no
mention of the sudden change in
command), his spare time "was once filled
with skiing, diving, team sports
and travel but is now confined to
decorating (when allowed and only under
close supervision) and extensive dog
walking".
A spokesman for the
MoD said Cmdr Axon was facing an administrative rather
than a disciplinary
procedure.
If he were found to have breached the rules the possible
penalties range
from guidance and retraining to dismissal. If he were
cleared of any
wrongdoing he could return as commanding officer of HMS
Somerset.
"There is certainly no question of him being hung out to dry,"
a navy source
said. "We have a duty of care to this guy as well as those who
have made the
allegations, and a naval barrister has been put at his
disposal."
Commodore Steven Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships,
said he had
never come across another case of a commander being removed from
his ship.
"In my experience in the navy I have never known it happen before,
although
as far as I can see the CO has not been dismissed.
"He is
still technically in command, he has just handed over command to the
XO in
order to sort this out."
Another former senior officer with a long career
in the Royal Navy also said
the move was unprecedented, but suggested that
the navy was "feeling cuddly
and warm post-Deepcut" - a reference to the
charges of abuse that have beset
the British army at its barracks in
Surrey.
"Any squeak of bullying and it is jumped on," the former officer
added.
SOKWANELE
Enough
is Enough
Zimbabwe
PROMOTING NON-VIOLENT PRINCIPLES TO ACHIEVE
DEMOCRACY
We have a fundamental right to freedom
of expression!
(www.sokwanele.com)
Sokwanele reporter
13 December 2004
THE NGO BILL IN CONTEXT
(The Non-Governmental
Organisations Bill had its third reading and was passed by Parliament at a late
night sitting on 9th December. It now requires only the signature of the
President and to be gazetted before it comes into force)
We used to have welfare organisations, but in the
past few years we have become more familiar with the term “non-governmental
organisations”. The new designation reflects the emergence of public activities
which go far beyond traditional charitable works of providing sustenance and
services to the poor. Not-for-profit organisations now include development
agencies, church welfare programmes, environmental protection agencies, human
rights organisations, advocacy groups, savings clubs, AIDS organisations and
others too numerous to mention.
Together these organisations generate a vast amount
of activity and financial resources which fall outside the purview of
government. They make the Zimbabwe government extremely nervous, for two
reasons: they provide development and other assistance to communities outside
government structures, showing the people that government does not have to be
relied on for everything; and they do not lend themselves to easy control. For
a government inclining more and more toward the totalitarian, they represent a
threat to its very existence, for they show that something else is
possible.
Immediately after Independence in 1980 and for the
following ten years, the state of emergency allowed the new government
effectively to subvert the constitution by keeping in place restrictions on
freedoms of assembly, association and expression Independent print and
electronic media did not exist, and people were accustomed to seeking government
approval before acting independently.
There were of course a large number of charitable
and development-oriented organisations, but those promoting rights or good
governance were conspicuous by their absence. At the time of the massacres in
Matabeleland in the mid 1980’s, there were few organisations in a position to
report on what was going on and speak out on behalf of the people; this role
fell to medical staff and clergy employed in churches, primarily the Roman
Catholics. No written reports were published in Zimbabwe until the mid
90’s.
In the 1980’s charitable organisations were
expected to register with the Social Welfare Department as welfare
organisations. They were given a registration number after being scrutinised by
the Registrar of Welfare Organisations, and this allowed them to collect funds
from the public, and even receive assistance for staff salaries. They could
benefit from tax-free status for their investments, and from import duty
rebates. They were required to provide reports and audited accounts to the
Department.
A large number of development organisations found a
legal existence in this way. Alternatively, they could simply form a Trust using
a Trust Deed, and register it with the High Court. This entitled them to
operate without any approval from the Social Welfare Department, or from anyone
else.
As the 1980’s gave way to the 90’s, and the state
of emergency was removed, a new type of non-profit organisation began to appear
– these were formed specifically to act as watchdogs of government or to lobby
for changes in government policies. They focussed on issues such as
environment, the media, human rights, democracy, civic education and the
constitution. While they advocated for specific policies, they were often
engaged in development work as well and undertook to educate communities on
their issues of concern. Many produced information sheets on their work and the
situation in Zimbabwe. Increasingly foreign and international NGOs also took an
interest in Zimbabwe.
Government grew increasingly uncomfortable at the
proliferation of organisations criticising their policies especially as the
negative effects of the Economic Structural Adjustments Programme (ESAP) began
to manifest themselves. Rather than welcome the healthy participation of many
civil society voices in public debate, ZANU PF became ever more paranoiac,
intolerant of dissenting views, and looked for ways to silence those they felt
most threatened by.
Their first move was to replace the Social Welfare
Organisations Act with new legislation which would make control of welfare
organisations much easier. In late 1994, the Private Voluntary Organisations
Bill was gazetted, and by March 1995 it was law. It is the direct precursor of
the current law, and introduced some of the control mechanisms that government
wishes to make use of now. The new terminology, “private voluntary
organisation” (PVO) in place of “welfare organisation”, was intended to embrace
developmental and advocacy organisations in addition to charitable
organisations. It removed the registration of these organisations from a single
civil servant in the Ministry and established a Private Voluntary Organisations
Board composed of 13 representatives of Private Voluntary Organisations and 1
from each of 6 ministries, all appointed by the Minister. The Board’s role was
to consider applications for registration, to issue registration certificates,
and cancel registrations. No organisation could begin activities or seek
funding without registration; to do so would be an offence. However, a long
list of organisations were exempted from registering, including “any trust
established directly by any enactment or registered with the High Court”. It
was this exemption which allowed many organisations to continue functioning and
many others to be formed, without coming directly under the control of a
government ministry.
Those which did register as PVOs were subject to
potentially stringent control: in the first place, registration could be
refused, secondly, registration could be cancelled by the Board, and finally,
the Minister could, “on information supplied to him” suspend all or any of the
members of the executive committee of a PVO and appoint whoever he chose to run
the organisation as a trustee, receiving whatever salary the Minister determined
from the organisation’s funds. This action could be taken on various grounds,
including if it appeared to the Minister that “it is necessary or desirable to
do so in the public interest”. While NGOs made protests about this aspect of
the Bill in particular, they were ignored. The legislation sailed through
Parliament, without a single sentence of debate. The second reading, committee
stage and third reading were all covered on the same day, and must have taken
not more than 30 minutes to complete. We must remember that Parliament at that
time was virtually a one-party Parliament, after the 1990 elections following
the Unity Accord, and there were very few voices of dissent.
The dangers inherent in the new Act became evident
the following year. Section 21 allowed the Minister to suspend executive
committee members of an NGO. The committee of African Women’s Clubs (AWC), the
chair of which was the firebrand Sekai Holland, was removed by the Minister on
allegations of mismanagement. There were clearly problems within the
organisation, but that was hardly a unique situation in an NGO. AWC was
targeted specifically because Holland was a thorn in the flesh of ZANU PF.
Previously a staunch ZANU PF member, she later became a founding executive
member of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Holland challenged the
suspension in the Supreme Court. She argued that the section contravened sec 18
of the Constitution (protection of the law) on the grounds that no fair hearing
was provided for, and also contravened the right to freedom of assembly and
association and the right to freedom of expression. The court agreed with her
first argument and declared sec 21 of the Act unconstitutional, but did not
comment on the contravention of the other rights.
Government backed down and respected the ruling of
the court. But since that date in 1997, government had on its agenda a
tightening of control of NGOs by bringing in another amendment to this
Act.
The NGO Bill was gazetted in August 2004 after
years of drafts, consultations and lobbying. Much had transpired over those
years which made government more determined to close in on the NGOs. During
those years, a new type of NGO had come to prominence – those in the field of
governance which were lobbying heavily and carrying out country-wide education
which would make people more aware of the “democratic deficit”. The most
effective at the time was the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), which
forced government to embark on its own, ultimately unsuccessful constitutional
reform programme, and also spawned the highly successful opposition party, the
MDC. ZANU PF began to blame NGOs in general for their loss of popularity, and
the “governance” NGOs in particular. As the NGO’s pressed for greater
democratisation, and the opposition gained strength, government responded with
legislation which would clamp down on their activities, specifically the Public
Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (AIPPA). Virtually all the new NGOS registered themselves with
Trust Deeds at the High Court, knowing that their chances of being registered
through the government-controlled process under the PVO Act were
slim.
Initial drafts of the NGO Bill caused concern among
NGOs because the proposed Council to register NGOs would be entirely controlled
by government, with a majority of government members, and a minority of NGO
members. The NGO umbrella organisation NANGO proposed a Council controlled by
NANGO. But all lobbying attempts were ignored. Government knew what it wanted,
and was not going to be deterred.
The real sting in the new Bill when it was finally
gazetted was the attack on the organisations concerned with human rights and
governance. The definition of an NGO is expanded by the addition of
institutions whose objects include “the promotion and protection of human rights
and good governance” and “the promotion and protection of environmental rights
and interests and sustainable development”. And, critically, it no longer
exempts Trusts registered with the High Court. Furthermore, a new section
prohibits any local NGO from receiving “foreign funding or donation to carry out
activities involving or including issues of governance”. Thus a local human
rights organisation, such as Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) or
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), can be registered, if the Council
approves it, but cannot receive foreign funding for any of its human rights or
governance activities. So even if the Council registers it, it will not be able
to function due to lack of funds. Foreign NGOs will be totally banned from
operating in the field of governance and human rights.
The sections of the Bill regarding the powers of
the Council and the Minister in relation to NGOs are slightly changed from the
PVO Act, but it is clear that the powers remain very wide. The Council can
cancel a registration or can undertake an investigation if the Registrar “has
reasonable grounds to suspect maladministration”, a term which is broadly
defined. The Council can then, if it wishes, recommend that the Minister
suspend any or all of the NGO’s executive committee. The Minister may do this
if he “is satisfied that it is in the public interest”. The Bill carefully
provides for a hearing by the NGO executive when under investigation by the
Council or the Minister, thus correcting the flaw identified in the previous
legislation by the Supreme Court in the Holland case. But, when allowing the
Minister to provide his own trustees to replace a suspended executive, it makes
no provision for a time limit, and does not exclude the disposal of property
from the powers of the appointed trustees. Such safeguards were included in the
PVO Act.
These sections give excessive power to the Minister
and his appointees in the Council. If there is maladministration amounting to
criminal activity in an NGO, the police are the proper authority to carry on an
investigation and bring the guilty parties before a court. Administrators do
not have such skills. Suspending an entire committee for the misdeeds of one
person smacks of collective punishment, and the provision for making
representations does not mean the Council or Minister will consider it fairly;
nor does the legislation require them to do so. The sections are clearly an
attempt to take political control over NGOs and they certainly violate several
rights guaranteed in the Constitution – freedom of association, protection of
the law, and freedom from arbitrary deprivation of property.
The intention behind the new Bill is clear – it
specifically targets NGOs which put government under pressure by exposing abuses
of human rights and misgovernance, and further allows the executive arm of
government (synonymous with the ruling party as far as the latter is concerned)
to close down and take over NGOs which it perceives to be threatening to its own
interests. Furthermore the mechanism used to achieve this is administrative
action which provides no recourse to any impartial legal procedure. While these
control sections are not very different from those in the PVO Act, where they do
differ, they give more power not less to government, and the sections allowing
for representations to be made are cosmetic rather than
substantial.
The other major change in the legislation is that
wherever an offence is created, a penalty is now given. For example, a person
involved in “management or control” of an unregistered NGO is subject to a fine
up to level 4 or imprisonment up to 5 months or both.
There was predictably an outcry from NGOs on
publication of the Bill, and an intensive lobby was mounted. Representations
were made to the Parliamentary portfolio committee and NGOs felt that they had
been received sympathetically, but some failed to appreciate that Parliamentary
committees have little power. This became obvious when the Bill was presented
in Parliament. On the first reading, no changes had been made from the
originally gazetted Bill.
This time, in contrast to the situation in 1995,
there was no easy passage for the legislation through Parliament. After first
reading, the Bill, according to procedure, was referred to the Parliamentary
Legal Committee, whose report was scathing. Describing the bill as “a most
serious attack on the Declaration of Rights”, the Committee expressed the view
that it “seeks to control, to silence, to render ineffective and ultimately to
shut down NGOs. In a clause by clause analysis it concluded that the
registration process proposed would contravene sections 17 (protection from
arbitrary search or entry) 19 (protection of freedom of conscience) 20
(protection of freedom of expression) and 21 (protection of freedom of assembly
and association) of the Constitution, but most particularly the freedom of
association, while the restriction on foreign funding for “issues of governance”
would contravene sections 19, 20 and 21.
In spite of this adverse report from its Legal
Committee, Parliament, controlled by a ZANU PF majority obedient to the dictates
of the executive, voted to ignore the report. Instead, on second reading, some
amendments were tabled. The Minister, Paul Mangwana, presented his proposals,
as did the acting chair of the Portfolio committee, and the MDC shadow minister
for Justice, David Coltart. The only substantive change that was ultimately
accepted in a fiercely-fought all-night confrontation was to allow organisations
operating as Trusts or in any other fashion, a six-month period in which to
continue to operate before their applications for registration were processed.
Organisations already registered as PVOs can continue to operate for the time
being, but will be subject to the funding restrictions and the threat of
cancellation of registration. Those not registered will have six months to apply
for registration.
At the present moment, while the Bill is awaiting
gazetting as an Act, NGOs are desperately studying the implications of the new
law for their operations and trying to decide how to respond. Several made
representations at the 36th session of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples Rights in Senegal in late November.
The NGO community obviously represents a very wide
diversity of interests. There are those NGOs which think they will not be
seriously affected and are not interested in risking their own activities to
stand up in support of others who are. There are others which engage in a
variety of activities, some of which will fall under the prohibition of foreign
funding and others which will not. Some may be prepared to give up a number of
their activities in order to save those which do not involve “governance
issues”. Others, whose activities consist solely of “governance issues” may be
expected to change their structures and become companies or institutes, or to
simply give up and dissolve themselves. Some may relocate to neighbouring
countries.
It is widely believed, and in fact has been
admitted by ZANU PF that certain NGOs are to be targeted under the new
legislation. They are the ones that have been most effective in challenging
government excesses, such as ZESN, ZLHR, the NCA and Crisis in Zimbabwe. In a
response to the NGO presentations to the African Commission, government said it
would not countenance the NCA and the Crisis Coalition because they were trying
to change the government.
We saw special targeting being applied under the
PVO Act, and since then we have ample experience of selective application of the
law in many spheres of life in Zimbabwe. It is particularly sinister when
applied against NGOs. It allows those which are considered “non-political” to
operate without any interference, pretending nothing is abnormal. Meanwhile all
NGOs are forced into a position where they will censor themselves, reducing
activities which might put them into the government’s line of fire, and
depriving the Zimbabwean public of the rich diversity of views and sources of
information to which they have become accustomed in the past decade. In short
Zimbabweans are to be starved of healthy debate and of the challenge to
government policy so essential to a true democracy.
NGOs have become the lifeblood of civil society.
Certainly, they exist primarily on foreign funding, an imperative in a collapsed
economy where any surplus is seized by the political elite and disappears
rapidly into conspicuous consumption, much of it outside the country. But they
have undertaken so much of the essential work of development and social welfare,
which should be but is not being carried out by government that their existence
is now crucial to the health and very survival of much of the population. Their
work in the areas of governance is evident when one compares the response to the
Gukuruhundi massacres in the 1980’s when such organisations did not exist, and
the response to the current terror generated by ZANU PF. They have become the
conscience of the nation, and a nation without a conscience is a tragic
phenomenon.
As NGO boards search their souls for the correct
response to their dilemma, we find ourselves in the same position as liberals
and churches, even academics, in Nazi Germany in the mid 1930’s. Helpless
against a determined regime holding all the levers of power, we watch aghast as
one after another of the spaces formerly providing independent thought and
action are closed down, and a fascist regime takes control of every aspect of
social existence.
Ends