IN a dramatic about-turn government has withdrawn its appeal for $127 billion from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to finance next year's parliamentary election in what is seen as a bid to avoid scrutiny over its organisation of the poll.

Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa yesterday confirmed the withdrawal of the plea for money.

"We had anticipated that we would need some money for the logistics of holding the election," Chinamasa said. "But given the current economic upturn we think we will now be able to meet the costs from our own resources."

However, diplomatic sources said government withdrew its application for funding after the United Nations agency said it wanted to send a team to assess the electoral framework and political climate next month.

The UNDP team, working under the auspices of its governance programme, had been expected to visit the country between March 3 and 13 to examine the electoral framework, election agencies' capacity, the voters' roll, and inspect how transparent the whole system was. There have been a number of meetings between government and the UNDP over the issue.

Zanu PF has been accused of using political violence and coercion to win elections while electoral agencies are seen as open to manipulation because they are not independent of government.

President Robert Mugabe effectively appoints members of the Electoral Supervisory Commission, which supervises the registration of voters and elections. He similarly appoints members of the Election Directorate that coordinates activities of government ministries and departments concerned with electoral arrangements.

Zimbabwe's electoral laws are not consistent with the norms and standards of other countries in the region. They fall well below the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum's principles on elections.

Opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai said in an interview this week that his party was concerned about the outdated and undemocratic electoral system. He said it was futile to contest an election in which the winner is predetermined.

"Our electoral framework and political environment are inimical to free and fair elections. Elections are always characterised by violence, intimidation and manipulation," Tsvangirai said.

"We are going to have a massive campaign for the electoral conditions to be improved. We want the electoral system to be reformed and independent agencies put in place before the next election."

President Mugabe announced recently the poll will be held next March.

Tsvangirai admitted there were differences within the MDC over whether or not to boycott the election.

"The arguments for and against participation are all justified but right now those whose view is that we should contest the election have an edge over those opposed to it," he said.

"We want this debate to sink to grassroots but we don't want it to kill our momentum and allow inertia to set in. We will remain prepared for the election in case the environment changes."

However, Chinamasa said there would be no change in electoral laws before the election.

"As far as we are concerned the next election will be run on the basis of the existing electoral laws," he said. "The issue of electoral law reform has something to do with the constitution and it is better dealt with in the global context of constitutional review."

"It's better to deal with such issues after the next election because at the moment there are a lot of pressing issues that we have to address now. Fundamental constitutional issues are contentious and take a long time to resolve."

On the MDC's threat to boycott the election unless electoral reforms are introduced, Chinamasa said the MDC was entitled to do so.

"It's their right to do so. There is no obligation that anyone has to contest elections if they don't want to. But we know they are afraid of losing. They know they will be trounced," he said.

IN an unprecedented move yesterday, state prosecutors applied to the High Court seeking an order to be allowed to address issues of fact after the defence had closed its case in the Morgan Tsvangirai treason trial.

Acting Attorney-General and lead state prosecutor Bharat Patel said he needed only "about 10 minutes" to address the issues which arose from the closing submissions of the defence counsel.

After hearing the submissions Justice Garwe, the Judge President, said he was reserving judgement to allow him time to go through all the evidence that was made since February last year when the trial started. He said the defence and the state would be notified when he was ready to deliver judgement.

SUPREME Court judge Justice Vernanda Ziyambi yesterday described the presidential decree prohibiting bail to suspects as "patently unconstitutional".

In a ruling delivered to an application by detained businessman James Makamba who is facing charges of externalising foreign currency, Ziyambi said the statutory instrument amending the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act removed the discretion of the presiding law officer to decide on bail. She however said she could not strike down the provision as this required a ruling by a full bench of the Supreme Court.

Makamba's High Court application for bail was last week thrown out by Justice Antonia Guvava who cited the new statutory instrument. Makamba last Wednesday then filed papers with the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory instrument and to overturn Justice Guvava's ruling.

CHURCH leaders involved in efforts to revive dialogue between Zanu PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) were in Italy last week to seek international expertise on how to resolve Zimbabwe's political stalemate.

The Zimbabwe Independent has it on good authority that Bishop Trevor Manhanga of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe, Bishop Patrick Mutume of the Catholic church and Fr Brian McGarry, also of the Catholic church, went to the Vatican last week to meet church officials and discuss ways of brokering talks between the political rivals.

Meanwhile, a delegation of church leaders leaves the country on Monday to meet the South African Council of Churches (SACC) over the political situation in Zimbabwe and efforts towards solving it through a negotiated settlement.

THE South African government would like to see Zimbabwe enjoy the same press freedom that exists in South Africa, Deputy President Jacob Zuma said yesterday.He was addressing the Cape Town Press Club three days after the company that operates Zimbabwe's embattled Daily News announced it was firing most of its employees because the government was preventing it from publishing.

"We believe in press freedom," Zuma said in a reply to a questioner. "In other words what we express in South Africa about press freedom, that is our position."And if you want to equate to Zimbabwe, take what we say here: that will certainly go for what we would want to see in any other country."

Journalists are now able to exercise their right to freedom of expression without hindrance or fear, he said."However, we believe that the full story of South Africa is yet to be told, especially from the perspective of the majority of South Africans.

MASHONALAND West's newly appointed governor Nelson Samkange has demanded that all white commercial farmers still on their properties in the province explain why they should be spared from eviction, the Zimbabwe Independent heard this week.

This came as scores of commercial farmers whose Section 8 notices had expired were hauled before the Karoi magistrates courts on Monday this week. About a dozen farmers trooped to the courts fearing that they could be detained if they defied Section 8 notices after they expired. Karoi courts however could not arbitrate in the cases because they are already before the High Court.

INFORMATION minister Jonathan Moyo's ambitious plan to widen government's propaganda outlets by establishing an electronic division at New Ziana is stalled due to lack of funding.

Moyo launched the restructured New Ziana late last year with plans to establish radio and television stations at both community and national level.

Moyo last year sought the assistance of Iran in the provision of equipment needed for his New Ziana project, which sources said is yet to yield anything.

OPPOSITION Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) head of delegation to talks with the ruling Zanu PF, Welshman Ncube, says his party will not accept President Robert Mugabe's preconditions for dialogue.

In a strong reaction to Mugabe's renewed demand that the MDC must first cut ties with its Western "allies" before talks, Ncube, also MDC secretary-general, said the opposition rejected that precondition.

MDC faces huge poll dilemma ahead

Dumisani Muleya

FOLLOWING President Robert Mugabe’s announcement last week that next year’s parliamentary election will be held in March, a fierce public debate has emerged over whether or not the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) should participate in the poll under the current political and electoral environment.

The debate is heating up in the MDC and among civil society about the issue which appears like a Catch-22 scenario for the opposition as it ponders its third national electoral test since its launch in 1999. 

Some say the MDC should boycott the election if the ruling Zanu PF refuses to overhaul the electoral framework and open up the political space to level the playing field to ensure a free and fair poll.

The MDC has been demanding that basic parameters that make polls meaningful should be drawn up to avoid elections without a choice. It wants a new electoral framework with an independent electoral commission, a revised voters roll and new monitoring mechanisms.

The party also wants freedom of the press and assembly to be upheld. It wants the state-run media opened to all political parties. It further demands that political rights and civil liberties must be restored.

At the moment, agencies such as the Electoral Supervisory Commission and the Election Directorate which manage polls do not have complete independence as their members are appointed by President Mugabe. The political climate has since 1980 been hostile to the opposition, except where Zanu PF is not under serious challenge as in the 1995/96 parliamentary and presidential polls.

Those who support an election boycott argue that an MDC involvement would only serve to legitimise an election that would predictably be won by Zanu PF — courtesy of a flawed electoral system open to manipulation and political violence or intimidation.

UZ law lecturer and chairman of the National Constitutional Assembly Lovemore Madhuku says the MDC’s participation would buy Zanu PF legitimacy.

“If they participate they will be giving Zanu PF a semblance of legitimacy. A boycott can work if it is accompanied by a string of other actions like street protests and demonstrations so that the elections either do not take place or are rendered illegitimate,” he said. “A boycott should mark the start of a long-term, coordinated struggle for democracy and should feed on the illegitimacy of the regime.”

Analysts say the MDC should not contest elections in which they would only act as “useful idiots” to the ruling party and come second as this could prove damaging in the long run. Former United States president Richard Nixon’s dictum has been cited to support this view. After George Bush Snr defeated Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential poll, Nixon said: “Finishing second in Olympics gets you silver. Finishing second in politics gets you oblivion.” Observers say the MDC risks this.

If the MDC pulls out, analysts argue, it means Zanu PF’s inevitable landslide would be hollow and could further compound President Mugabe’s current legitimacy crisis derived from the stolen presidential poll in March 2002.

Those who support the boycott think that an exacerbated legitimacy crisis would consign Zanu PF into deeper isolation — both at home and abroad — and thus impair its ability to function effectively to sustain its dictatorial rule.

Others say after the boycott the MDC should become a resistance movement, committed to defiance methods such as mass action and stayaways in a political battle of attrition with Zanu PF. But this begs the question of whether the MDC has the capacity to go that route and how sustainable this strategy could be?

Some analysts say the MDC should contest the election even under the same conditions as in the 2000 and 2002 polls if demands for electoral reforms are rejected.

Commentators who advance this argument say there is absolutely nothing to be gained by a boycott that would only serve to hand Zanu PF an absolute majority and with it power to amend the constitution as and when it wishes to consolidate its power.

They say if the MDC boycotts the poll it would be voluntarily electing to banish itself to the wilderness where it risks redundancy and disintegration. And it would also be letting its supporters down.

Observers say the strategy of fuelling the current regime’s legitimacy crisis by withdrawal would not work because Zanu PF and Mugabe no longer really care about the issue as they have been ruling regardless.

Professor John Stremlau of South Africa’s Witwatersrand University says a boycott can be “politically significant” yet “very difficult” to coordinate, depending on the dynamics on a particular political situation.

“Boycotts can be politically significant, but they can be very difficult to organise depending on conditions in a particular situation,” he said. “If an opposition party makes empty threats of a boycott it gets discredited. There has to be a capacity to deliver.”

Analysts say the situation is complicated in Zimbabwe because Mugabe is already isolated. Western leaders rejected Mugabe’s re-election in 2002 but he has plodded on and continues to perform the duties of a legitimate leader. Critics say it is possible the situation can go on like this until he finishes his term in 2008. Last week Mugabe said he could retire in five years time.

Mugabe says the West is pursuing a self-interested agenda in Zimbabwe and pitches his current political fight as against erstwhile colonial masters and not the MDC. He even rejects Western calls for democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe on that basis. Analysts say while Mugabe is clearly brandishing a contrived false fight to justify his continued dictatorship, there is, however, some merit in his argument.

Critics say Western countries that until recent years supported Mugabe have largely failed in their efforts to force him to jettison his repression or remove him from power because they were initially part of the problem. They say either by commission or omission, Western states backed Mugabe while he perpetrated gross human rights violations and consolidated his tyranny over 20 years.

This observation has been raised several times in the British House of Commons by Labour MPs who accused the Conservatives of backing Mugabe when his despotism was arguably worse. Some analysts say insofar as repression is concerned, the situation was worse in the 1980s than now. Observers say the 1985 general election, held in the midst of massacres across vast swathes of Matabeleland, was much more violent than the 2000 and 2002 polls but Western countries, then driven by the existing global political order considerations, kept quiet and endorsed Mugabe.

Now it appears like the West’s complicity has weakened their position on the Zimbabwe crisis morally and politically. Mugabe has exploited the situation with a considerable measure of success, they say.

As for the MDC becoming a resistance movement, analysts say the party simply has no capacity. Defiance works effectively where power relations between the ruling party and the opposition are tilted in favour of the latter.

Boycotts of polls and parliaments have not been effective in Mauritania, Bangladesh, Algeria, Cambodia, Bermuda and Srinagar in the heart of the disputed Indian Kashmir.

But boycotts have worked in some cases of historical significance. German goods were boycotted by the American Jewish community in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott organised by Dr Martin Luther King Jr in the 1950s became a defining moment of the Civil Rights Movement. However, whether or not a boycott of elections can work in Zimbabwe remains to be seen.

TELEACCESS (Zimbabwe) (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary of TeleAccess Global Corporation, licensed to become the second national fixed telephone operator, is embroiled in a row with the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (Potraz) over its multibillion dollar project.

Angry letters have been flying back and forth between TeleAccess, whose chief executive is Zanu PF Masvingo provincial chair Daniel Shumba, and Potraz since May 13 last year over the telephone firm's business plans and the date of launch of its project.

Potraz, however, argues that TeleAccess' refusal to submit separate plans for their three different business units would make it difficult to "objectively assess the tariff structure". Efforts to get comment from Shumba and Potraz were unsuccessful.

Zim Indep Eric Bloc Economic destruction not the path to political change SINCE the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) made public that I was the chairman of a sub-committee of his foreign currency auction’s advisory board, and that the mandate of that sub-committee is to devise appropriate modalities to facilitate and incentivise Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to repatriate funds through official channels, I have been the recipient of a torrent of telephone calls, e-mails, fax transmissions and letters. Some have been highly supportive, recognising that if efficient, reliable and lawful structures can be put in place, it would protect the tens of thousands of Zimbabweans abroad who have fallen prey to confidence tricksters who have sought to deprive them and their families in Zimbabwe of the funds intended to be transferred, or who have been victims of highly erratic postal services which have resulted in non-receipt, or delayed receipt, of money transfers. Many of the telephone calls and other communications have been from banks, money transfer agencies, international bureaux de change and other entrepreneurs desirous of being players within the remittance and distribution infrastructures to be established, they being cognisant of the potentially very great commercial benefits which they could enjoy if they could become associated with the contemplated transfers of monies to Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans working in neighbouring countries and further afield. I also had a significant number of telephone calls from journalists, at home and abroad. Most of them were enquiring as to how it was envisaged that money transfer systems would function as would accord the transferors exchange rates commensurate with, or similar to, those they were currently attaining through black market trading. They also wanted to know what reassurances would be given to those intending to transfer monies that such monies would reach the intended beneficiaries in Zimbabwe without diversion by RBZ or government, at full value and timeously. There was also widespread interest as to how the sub-committee planned to communicate with the Zimbabweans abroad and, in particular, that neither those communications or the intended money transfer structures to be established would disclose to the authorities the whereabouts of those Zimbabweans working without valid resident or work permits. In virtually all instances I was able to provide the journalists with the information that they sought, insofar as the sub-committee’s work has been completed, but subject to the reservation that the proposals are still to be refined and finalised, upon completion of requisite research and consideration thereof. There was, however, a very notableexception, being a journalist attached to a leading British newspaper who was at one time a resident of Zimbabwe. She very clearly had “a chip on her shoulder”. She was determined to extort admissions from me that the intended accessing of foreign exchange from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora was for no purpose other than to support the Zanu PF government and further entrench its autocratic and non-democratic rule. She was wholly unwilling to accept that there could be any other motives and implied even if there were, the consequences would be such support and entrenchment of the present regime. Moreover, if there were any other benefits accruing to Zimbabwe and its people, sheclearly felt that they had to be wholly subordinated to the inevitable benefit to government and, therefore, it was near-treasonous to try to access the foreign exchange. She went further, voicing innuendoes that I had sold my integrity and was willing to be a Zanu PF accomplice by being remunerated by the RBZ, and was very evidently disappointed and dismayed when I was able to advise her that neither I nor any other member of the advisory board received anything for our services(other than, on occasion, a lunch after a meeting). However, she has not been the only critic. Many of the contacts made to me, and in some cases authors of letters to the press (invariably being persons shielding behind nom-de-plumes — presumably being too cowardly to write other than anonymously), have been to castigate and pillory me, and in some instances to revile me and make threats against me. In almost every instance the attacks have been founded upon the perception that assisting the RBZ in its endeavours to achieve critically needed foreign exchange inflows from Zimbabweans abroad is an act of aiding and abetting an evil government that is contemptuous of the very fundamentals of human rights, of thepreservation of law and order, and of the principles of democracy, justice and good governance. In over 20 years of writing in the media I have tried to be fair and balanced. If I have not succeeded, it is not for lack of trying. Thus, on the rare occasions when I have considered that government has done something good, I have commended it. Regrettably, I have very much more frequently considered it necessary to criticise it and, all too often, to condemn it. In my considered opinion the devastated state of Zimbabwe’s economy is wholly attributable to the government. Equally, I strongly hold the view that government abuses its power to assure its continued rigid control of all arms of the state, including parliament and the judiciary, and to oppress all that it perceives as opposed to its ideologies and objectives. Observing the magnitude of harm that government has afflicted upon Zimbabwe, and continues to afflict upon the majority of the populace, I would dearly love to see it replaced by a government that has a genuine caring for the people and a respect for the fundamental principles of ethical and sound governance.But I believe that that replacement must come about through methods of peaceful protest and through the ballot box (with such unified mass action at the ballot as prevents hijacking of the ballot), facilitated by constructive international pressures and by a resolve of Zimbabweans not to succumb to the malevolent misuse of authorityand violation of the precepts of democratic rule. I do not believe that change should be brought about by accelerating the economic decline. The economy has been weakened to such an extent that about 80% of the population is unemployed, which has been a major factor to the massive brain drain which Zimbabwe has experienced in recent years — although that brain drain has also been as a result of those no longer willing to be subjected to unjust rule. Therefore, for right or for wrong, I believe that it is in the interests of Zimbabweans for efforts to attract foreign exchange from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to be pursued. If those efforts are successful, the vast numbers abroad, who are desperately trying to assist their families that are poverty-stricken or financially stressed, will beprotected from tricksters endeavouring to defraud them, and from the uncertainties as to whether and when their families would receive the funds being transferred to them. And I believe it is in the interests of Zimbabweans that the economic regression be, at the least, slowed down and, if at all possible, halted and reversed, so that when at some future date all Zimbabweans can justly claim to have a government that worships and implements genuine justice, and is one that believes in “government of the people, by thepeople, for the people”, there remains an economic foundation upon which can be built the source of future wellbeing for all. Thus, I will continue, for so long as I am able, to do my small bit to assist the economy. Hopefully my doing so will not help to prolong government’s rule but, if so, so be it. It is most regrettable if that is a by-product effect, and I abhor it, but I abhorthe malnutrition, poverty, misery and distress suffered by most Zimbabweans even more. In fact, to cite the nom-de-plume of a correspondent to this newspaper last week who let loose his vitriol against me, “Charity begins at home”, and home for 12 millionor more is Zimbabwe! (And, as to his barbed question: I am fortunate that I have not suffered as have so many others, but I too have had to queue, have had togo without essential medicines, have a permanent injury from an attack upon me by war veterans, and am conscious of the suffering that abounds in Zimbabwe). But if charity begins at home, that must include enabling economic survival as far as possible, concurrently with legitimate and lawful endeavours to bring about a change in government, or a change of government. If some choose to despise me for doingso, that is their right, but I remain convinced that to destroy the economy further is not the path to attain a long overdue change of government.

SINCE the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) made public that I was the chairman of a sub-committee of his foreign currency auction’s advisory board, and that the mandate of that sub-committee is to devise appropriate modalities to facilitate and incentivise Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to repatriate funds through official channels, I have been the recipient of a torrent of telephone calls, e-mails, fax transmissions and letters. 

Some have been highly supportive, recognising that if efficient, reliable and lawful structures can be put in place, it would protect the tens of thousands of Zimbabweans abroad who have fallen prey to confidence tricksters who have sought to deprive them and their families in Zimbabwe of the funds intended to be transferred, or who have been victims of highly erratic postal services which have resulted in non-receipt, or delayed receipt, of money transfers. 

Many of the telephone calls and other communications have been from banks, money transfer agencies, international bureaux de change and other entrepreneurs desirous of being players within the remittance and distribution infrastructures to be established, they being cognisant of the potentially very great commercial benefits which they could enjoy if they could become associated with the contemplated transfers of monies to Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans working in neighbouring countries and further afield.

I also had a significant number of telephone calls from journalists, at home and abroad.  Most of them were enquiring as to how it was envisaged that money transfer systems would function as would accord the transferors exchange rates commensurate with, or similar to, those they were currently attaining through black market trading.  They also wanted to know what reassurances would be given to those intending to transfer monies that such monies would reach the intended beneficiaries in Zimbabwe without diversion by RBZ or government, at full value and timeously.  There was also widespread interest as to how the sub-committee planned to communicate with the Zimbabweans abroad and, in particular, that neither those communications or the intended money transfer structures to be established would disclose to the authorities the whereabouts of those Zimbabweans working without valid resident or work permits.

In virtually all instances I was able to provide the journalists with the information that they sought, insofar as the sub-committee’s work has been completed, but subject to the reservation that the proposals are still to be refined and finalised, upon completion of requisite research and consideration thereof. 

There was, however, a very notableexception, being a journalist attached to a leading British newspaper who was at one time a resident of Zimbabwe.  She very clearly had “a chip on her shoulder”. She was determined to extort admissions from me that the intended accessing of foreign exchange from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora was for no purpose other than to support the Zanu PF government and further entrench its autocratic and non-democratic rule.  She was wholly unwilling to accept that there could be any other motives and implied even if there were, the consequences would be such support and entrenchment of the present regime.  Moreover, if there were any other benefits accruing to Zimbabwe and its people, sheclearly felt that they had to be wholly subordinated to the inevitable benefit to government and, therefore, it was near-treasonous to try to access the foreign exchange.

She went further, voicing innuendoes that I had sold my integrity and was willing to be a Zanu PF accomplice by being remunerated by the RBZ, and was very evidently disappointed and dismayed when I was able to advise her that neither I nor any other member of the advisory board received anything for our services(other than, on occasion, a lunch after a meeting).

However, she has not been the only critic.  Many of the contacts made to me, and in some cases authors of letters to the press (invariably being persons shielding behind nom-de-plumes — presumably being too cowardly to write other than anonymously), have been to castigate and pillory me, and in some instances to revile me and make threats against me.   In almost every instance the attacks have been founded upon the perception that assisting the RBZ in its endeavours to achieve critically needed foreign exchange inflows from Zimbabweans abroad is an act of aiding and abetting an evil government that is contemptuous of the very fundamentals of human rights, of thepreservation of law and order, and of the principles of democracy, justice and good governance.

In over 20 years of writing in the media I have tried to be fair and balanced. If I have not succeeded, it is not for lack of trying. Thus, on the rare occasions when I have considered that government has done something good, I have commended it. 

Regrettably, I have very much more frequently considered it necessary to criticise it and, all too often, to condemn it.  In my considered opinion the devastated state of Zimbabwe’s economy is wholly attributable to the government. Equally, I strongly hold the view that government abuses its power to assure its continued rigid control of all arms of the state, including parliament and the judiciary, and to oppress all that it perceives as opposed to its ideologies and objectives. 

Observing the magnitude of harm that government has afflicted upon Zimbabwe, and continues to afflict upon the majority of the populace, I would dearly love to see it replaced by a government that has a genuine caring for the people and a respect for the fundamental principles of ethical and sound governance.But I believe that that replacement must come about through methods of peaceful protest and through the ballot box (with such unified mass action at the ballot as prevents hijacking of the ballot), facilitated by constructive international pressures and by a resolve of Zimbabweans not to succumb to the malevolent misuse of authorityand violation of the precepts of democratic rule.  I do not believe that change should be brought about by accelerating the economic decline.

The economy has been weakened to such an extent that about 80% of the population is unemployed, which has been a major factor to the massive brain drain which Zimbabwe has experienced in recent years — although that brain drain has also been as a result of those no longer willing to be subjected to unjust rule.

Therefore, for right or for wrong, I believe that it is in the interests of Zimbabweans for efforts to attract foreign exchange from Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to be pursued.  If   those efforts are successful, the vast numbers abroad, who are desperately trying to assist their families that are poverty-stricken or financially stressed, will beprotected from tricksters endeavouring to defraud them, and from the uncertainties as to whether and when their families would receive the funds being transferred to them.

And I believe it is in the interests of Zimbabweans that the economic regression be, at the least, slowed down and, if at all possible, halted and reversed, so that when at some future date all Zimbabweans can justly claim to have a government that worships and implements genuine justice, and is one that believes in “government of the people, by thepeople, for the people”, there remains an economic foundation upon which can be built the source of future wellbeing for all.

Thus, I will continue, for so long as I am able, to do my small bit to assist the economy.   Hopefully my doing so will not help to prolong government’s rule but, if so, so be it.  It is most regrettable if that is a by-product effect, and I abhor it, but I abhorthe malnutrition, poverty, misery and distress suffered by most Zimbabweans even more.  In fact, to cite the nom-de-plume of a correspondent to this newspaper last week who let loose his vitriol against me, “Charity begins at home”, and home for 12 millionor more is Zimbabwe!  (And, as to his barbed question: I am fortunate that I have not suffered as have so many others, but I too have had to queue, have had togo without essential medicines, have a permanent injury from an attack upon me by war veterans, and am conscious of the suffering that abounds in Zimbabwe).

But if charity begins at home, that must include enabling economic survival as far as possible, concurrently with legitimate and lawful endeavours to bring about a change in government, or a change of government.  If some choose to despise me for doingso, that is their right, but I remain convinced that to destroy the economy further is not the path to attain a long overdue change of government.

At inception, Telecel International owned 40 percent of Telecel Zimbabwe and the Empowerment Corporation (EC) 60 percent. Mugabe said he invested in EC through his company IEG. EC was a fusion of indigenous groups such as Makamba’s Kestrel Corporation (15 percent), IEG (10 percent), Affirmative Action Group (AAG), IBWO, the Zimbabwe Farmers Union, the Zimbabwe National Social Security Authority and the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association, all with nine percent each. The company was granted a licence to operate a cellular network under political consideration as government wanted to empower previously marginalised black Zimbabweans. Cracks began to emerge within the consortium following differences over the shareholding structure. Makamba, who was at one time a business partner to former army commander, retired general Solomon Mujuru, was accused by his erstwhile colleagues of elbowing them out of the company. With strained relations, other partners’ instinct was to work against Makamba. The boardroom squabbles saw the acrimonious pull-out of Chiyangwa’s AAG. The pressure group, well-placed sources said, was paid $14 million for its interest in Telecel.Giles Munyoro, secretary general of the EC, apparently bitter in the manner in which he believes Makamba elbowed them out of Telecel said: "That is a political licence we got through the Cabinet as the EC. It belongs to all of us. Makamba made some of his workers directors and we lost our shareholding. We need to reclaim our status. We have approached the government already to sort out the mess." Asked whether the incarceration of Makamba, arrested on February 9, and Mutasa was not going to hinder progress in resolving the shareholding problems at Telecel, Mugabe said: "It’s unfortunate that they have been arrested, but they have not been convicted so that doesn’t hinder progress. Whether Makamba is in prison or not is basically neither here nor there. We are hoping the problems would be resolved soon."

The long-running treason trial of Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai neared its end with the defense team saying several key witnesses failed to appear in court. Defense attorney George Bizos, who defended Nelson Mandela 40 years ago, said three key witnesses failed to turn up, and the state did nothing to try to find them. He said the three men could have provided details of the relationship between the defendant and a Canadian consultant who was the state's star witness. The witness, Ari Ben Menashe, presented a videotape on which Mr. Tsvangirai allegedly asked for help in having Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe killed. Mr. Tsvangirai says he was only asking for political advice on how to defeat Mr. Mugabe in the 2002 presidential election. In arguments in court this week, State Prosecutor Bharat Patel argued that any meeting in which there is discussion of the elimination of the president, combined with other evidence from state witnesses, constitutes what he called - treasonous conduct. But Mr. Bizos, the defense attorney, cited South African case law, and said mere discussion did not suffice unless it resulted in a conspiracy to take action, or if there was clear evidence of incitement to commit treason during the discussion. Mr. Bizos said treason charges are open to political abuse, and one needs clear evidence. It cannot be proved on the basis of tenuous innuendo. Mr. Bizos called the state's key witness, Mr. Ben Menashe, a crook, cheat and a liar. He said the missing witnesses are all Mr. Ben Menashe's associates, and one of them is an alleged criminal, while the other could be a foreign intelligence agent. Mr. Bizos finishes his final argument Thursday and the state will then be asked for its closing statement, bringing to an end Zimbabwe's longest and most controversial trial.

Surveys on the accessibility of health and education facilities for the disabled showed that 80 percent believed primary health care clinics and hospitals were accessible, while 40 percent gave schools a thumbs-up. Commenting on the findings of the survey, SAFOD secretary general Alexander Phiri said despite the lack of facilities, living conditions of people with disabilities were better in rural areas because there was a greater sense of community. He said he hoped the information gathered would be used to formulate better welfare schemes for the disabled in Zimbabwe, and added that SAFOD was working towards a regional policy to address their specific needs.