Former envoy leaves $17m debt in Vienna | |
2/28/01 8:16:58 AM (GMT +2) |
Staff Reporter
EVELYN Kawonza,
Zimbabwe’s celebrated former ambassador to Austria, left behind in Vienna debts
totalling more than Z$17 million when she was recalled to Zimbabwe in July last
year.
The 12 February issue of an
Austrian weekly publication, Profil, reported that by the time she left Vienna
after four years, Kawonza, 60, owed four banks almost 4,5 million Austrian
schillings and 4 890 schillings to a photographic shop near the Zimbabwean
embassy.
An Austrian schilling is about $3,90 at today’s exchange rate.
Profil reported: “Zimbabwe’s former ambassador to Vienna took out loans of
millions of Austrian schillings and withdrew into faraway Africa.”
The banks
did not have her address and were at the same time “trying hard to solve this
embarrassing issue without great publicity. Which also means that they cannot
sue”.
Yesterday, Kawonza admitted she owed the banks money, but disputed the
amount.
“It’s far from that,” she said. “It’s manageable. I have actually
paid some of it back.”
She accused an official at the embassy in Vienna of
telling the banks that they would never find her in Zimbabwe.
Kawonza,
however, refused to name the official.
The Austrian ambassador in Harare,
Peter Leitenbauer, was said to have advised Kawonza to talk to the banks.
Yesterday, he refused to comment on the issue.
Profil said: “Three weeks
ago, Evelyn Kawonza flew to Vienna, stayed at the posh Radisson Hotel, and
talked to the banks. She wanted to go into the export business and sell
Zimbabwean soapstone sculptures or the raw material to Austria. With the profits
she would settle her debts.”
Profil said an unnamed Zimbabwean sculptor had
been visiting the Austrian Trade Mission in Harare asking for payment for his
sculptures which were sent to Austria.
The money was allegedly borrowed to
set up a business project which
Kawonza intended to manage with an Austrian
businessman as partner.
The businessman, however, became suspicious when
banks and other businessmen started calling him. Kawonza had allegedly named him
everywhere as her business partner without ever having made business with him.
In an interview with Profil, Kawonza said she regretted that her activities
were now considered as private business by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
Harare.
Kawonza said her problems started when she was suddenly recalled
from Vienna.
She said she was granted only one month in which to wind up her
affairs.
She said she had been to Austria twice since her return to Harare
and would be going back there to settle the debt.
Profil said: “The
financial institutions are now considering special ways of doing business with
diplomats who take out loans. Because so far, the rules have been very simple.
Someone who, like Mrs Ambassador, earns 300 000 schillings a month, has access
to as much credit as she wants.”
Kawonza was honoured by the tourism
industry last April for promoting tourist traffic from Austria to Zimbabwe.
Group to challenge Mugabe’s immunity | |
2/28/01 8:04:34 AM (GMT +2) |
Staff Reporter
FIVE Zimbabweans, suing
President Mugabe in the United States for the deaths of their family members in
the run-up to the June parliamentary election, say they will challenge a request
by the Zimbabwe government for immunity over a civil suit they filed against
him.
Evelyn Masaiti, MP for
Mutasa, Elliot Pfebve, whose brother was killed during pre-election violence
last year, Adella Chiminya, widow of MDC president Morgan Tsvangirai’s driver
and Maria Stevens, widow of a farmer killed during farm invasions, are suing
Mugabe for $400 million in damages.
The government yesterday denied
President Mugabe had requested immunity, saying he already enjoyed protection
from such action.
Jonathan Moyo, the Minister of State for Information and
Publicity, yesterday said: “You don’t have to request for immunity. Presidents
have immunity.”
Topper Whitehead, spokesman for the plaintiffs, however,
said Mugabe and Zanu PF made the request through the US State department. He
said lawyers for Masaiti, Pfebve, Chiminya and Stevens would challenge the
request.
“The plaintiffs have until 23 March to respond to the State
Department letter with a brief to explain why the defendants are not immune from
this action,” said Whitehead.
“This will be done and we have one of the
final legal firms in the United States gathering the best available team to
fight for truth and justice for all.”
Mugabe and Stan Mudenge, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, were served with papers while attending the UN Millennium
Summit in September 1999. At first, the government vehemently denied Mugabe and
Mudenge were served with papers on the suit while attending the summit.
The
government later denied the matter was before the courts. It later turned out
the case was heard before judge Victor Marrero. The court noted the default of
Mugabe and Mudenge after they failed to appear. The government then argued the
matter was not heard, saying the plaintiff's were turned away because their
papers were out of order.
Yesterday, Moyo accused the independent media of
ignoring the government's explanations on the issue. He said the government was
taking The Daily News, The Standard and Topper Whitehead, spokesman for the
plaintiffs, to court.
Reuters news agency reported from Washington on Monday
President George W Bush’s administration said Mugabe was entitled to immunity as
a head of state, citing the principle of reciprocity if it is to guarantee
immunity for US leaders abroad.
The representative of the US Attorney is
said to have told a Manhattan court that Mugabe and Zanu PF had officially
requested that the US State department submit a letter suggesting immunity of
their behalf.
However, US officials said the intervention on Mugabe's behalf
should not be interpreted as reflecting any change in US human rights policy
with regard to Zimbabwe, a State Department official said.
“Government-instigated lawlessness and violence in Zimbabwe pose a grave
danger not only to the safety of Zimbabwean citizens but to the rule of law and
the integrity of governing institutions in that country,” a US official said.
War vets dismiss PTC workers | |
2/28/01 8:03:55 AM (GMT +2) |
Staff Reporter
TWO workers at the Post and Telecommunications Corporation (PTC) branch in Centenary, Obert Karambamuchero and Cleopas Mavhunga, were “dismissed” from their jobs and evicted from their homes by war veterans last Friday.
Fellow workers at the
branch alleged Karambamuchero, a messenger, was fired by the war veterans for
travelling to St Albert’s Mission on a commuter omnibus suspected to have been
carrying MDC supporters. He was accused of being an MDC supporter, his
colleagues said.
Mavhunga, a general hand at the same post office, was
accused of campaigning for MDC candidates running for council elections in his
home area near St Albert's Mission.
The workers said the war veterans
brought the police to the post office on Friday and told the postmaster that the
two were fired for sympathising with the opposition.
Yesterday, the two did
not report for work. Karambamuchero was a lodger at the house of the assistant
district administrator in Centenary while
Mavhunga lived in a cottage at the
postmaster's house.
Yesterday, the postmaster, who refused to identify
himself by name, referred all questions to the police.
“They are the ones
who have been coming here with these war veterans and they can give you more
information,” he said. He refused to elaborate.
The officer-in-charge at
Centenary referred questions to Bindura police, who in turn said questions
should be referred to the police spokesman, Wayne Bvudzijena, in Harare.
There are bound to be more rattles | |
2/28/01 7:51:48 AM (GMT +2) |
THE government was evidently rattled by the visit of the British Conservative Party's shadow foreign minister, Francis Maude, this week.
The Tories, trying to go
one better than the Labour Party, are calling for Zimbabwe to be suspended from
the Commonwealth, which is as likely to happen as President Mugabe winning the
Nobel Peace Prize. Most African members of that group of English-speaking
nations seem quite satisfied that Mugabe's policy of bashing the judges, the
independent Press and the opposition is none of their business.
One good
reason could be that some of them indulge in the same sort of violent cleansing
in their own countries, and would like Mugabe to return the favour once they
find themselves in the same political stew - hanging on to power by the skin of
their teeth. But we are still surprised at the extent to which the government
seemed to be rattled by Maude's statements. Many European countries have already
indicated their utter disgust by either cutting off aid altogether or scaling it
down to the barest minimum.
None of them want to make a song-and-dance about
it because Mugabe's reaction is unpredictable. He might decide to send all their
nationals packing at short notice or punish their companies which may have
extensive operations and assets here.
So perhaps the new US administration
is nervous about its interests here too, hence the decision to grant Mugabe
immunity from prosecution over the lawsuits brought against him in New York over
the murders in the run-up to the election last year.
To be sure, the US
government says this gesture does not in any way affect its position on the
violation of human rights in this country. It remains as resolute as ever in its
call for a return to the rule of law and an end to the persecution of the
Judiciary, the independent media and the opposition.
What is really
priceless about the request for immunity by Mugabe et al is their initial,
almost hysterical denial that anything of the sort was going on. There were
strident denials of the legal papers ever having been served on Mugabe and the
Foreign Minister, Stan Mudenge.
Newspapers which insisted that the papers
had indeed been served were vilified by the government and the journalists were
hauled to the police station to make lengthy statements in an atmosphere in
which they were treated almost as if they had committed breaches of national
security.
Yet while all this was going on, the government must have been
aware of the true situation. We doubt that the US government could have gone to
all the trouble of preparing these weighty immunity papers without letting the
government in Harare know what they were up to. The government seems determined
to go ahead with a criminal defamation suit against the newspapers which have
carried stories about the whole business of the lawsuit in the US courts. So the
matter may be sub judice.
But it is enough to say there was never any need
for all this aggravation if the government had been honest with the people right
from the beginning. Instead, it adopted the same attitude of contempt it has
always adopted towards its critics - that they don't know the facts, that they
are motivated by malice and that they are not patriotic enough to ignore the
government's little mistakes.
Yet even the Americans, while conceding the
need to grant Mugabe and company immunity, say they are still critical of the
government's support for lawlessness and violence against its own citizens.
Since the referendum in February last year, the government has allowed this
country to be ruled by the war veterans. It is the war veterans who started
agitating against the judges and the independent Press. It is the war veterans
who staged two noisy demonstrations against this newspaper before its printing
press was bombed.
These are facts: there can be no malice involved.
A
government is made up of fallible human beings capable of monumental blunders of
judgment. Since 1980, this government has made some classical political and
economic blunders and the chickens have come home to roost.
Instead of
turning their wrath on the judges, the independent media and the opposition, the
government ought to engage in some serious self-examination.
There is hardly
a shred of patriotism in deliberately destroying the economy and antagonising
erstwhile political and economic allies, Europe and the United States included,
for the short-term gain of winning a presidential election, whether it is held
next June or next year.
How to survive deportation through laughter | |
2/28/01 7:53:04 AM (GMT +2) |
Bill Saidi On Wedneday
Deporting foreign
journalists is the speciality of totalitarian regimes all over the world.
The journalists' ostensible
sin, always, is that they refused to send back to their newspapers and radio
stations stories lavishing praise on the leader of the country in which they are
based. Or failed to portray the country as a paradise on earth, even while
corruption in high places was endemic and street urchins died in the city
streets, of hunger and the effects of incessant glue-sniffing.
Such
governments, because they have so much filth to hide, would prefer to be covered
by “patriotic” journalists, by which they mean dumb-bells.
If the indigenous
journalists are worth their salt they too will be in serious trouble with the
government.
What the governments hate is coverage of their corruption, their
persecution of judges, violations of human rights by so-called war veterans, the
persecution of the opposition by the same veterans and the routine beatings of
citizens by uniformed policemen and soldiers for no reason.
They don't want
all that read about and listened to in foreign newspapers and radio stations.
They will hound the reporters until they can reform or eliminate them. They
might even contrive to send them to “re-education camps”, which was done by the
Cambodian butcher, Pol Pot, admired by many African leaders for his blood-lust.
If they can't reform the indigenous journalists, then they make life a hell
on earth for them.
They can trump up charges against them: a waitress in
their favourite watering hole could fake a rape against the journalists, or slip
a Mickey Finn into their drink.
Their phone could be tapped, their house
bugged, their relatives harassed, their movements monitored, as visibly as
possible, to heighten anxiety.
In the old days, assassins were paid to
simply liquidate them.
If they are foreign then they are deported, like
Joseph Winter and Mercedes Sayagues. For these two fairly young people
deportation is no fun. In fact, it could be quite traumatic.
But, having
seen the horrors of political torture in Zimbabwe, they must be thick-skinned
enough to get over the initial shock.
Spies are deported, if they are not
hanged, or killed in meticulously stage-managed accidents. But deporting foreign
journalists is the trademark of the xenophobic regime, corrupt and contemptuous
of the rule of law.
The first and only country from which I was ever
deported was in Africa. I believe I survived the trauma by imagining how my
tormentors saw me as I stepped off the plane:
A monster from outer space,
with slimy entrails cascading out of every orifice, a huge, Unicorn horn smack
in the middle of my forehead, and sabre-size teeth dripping with blood;
A
diseased monster, staggering off the plane and crying in a croaky, woe-filled
voice for help from a death-dealing malady;
Or James Bond and Rambo all
rolled into one, bristling with the latest lethal weaponry in espionage and
mercenary legend;
Perhaps a drug-dealer, my stomach bulging with heroin and
cocaine stuffed in cellophane bags;
Or an Avenging Angel in the purest
white, Bible and crucifix in one hand, a sword in the other, come to inflict the
punishment of God on a cruel, murderous and ungodly regime.
That's why I was
able to laugh at the officials at Chileka airport, in Kamuzu Banda's Malawi in
1974, as I waited to board the plane back to Lusaka, half an hour after I had
got off it. I had been PI'd, as we said then.The Ngwazi's regime was everything
Slobodan Milosevic would have loved.
The previous year I had travelled
without any problems and had been treated like a VIP, courtesy of Aleke Banda,
then something of Kamuzu's blue-eyed boy.
In 1974, Aleke Banda was in
trouble with Kamuzu and I was officially persona non grata because of just one
article in our newspaper back in Lusaka.
In Zimbabwe, the so-called drama
surrounding the deportation of both Winter and Sayagues was pure comic opera.
Patrick Chinamasa, the Minister of Judge Sackings, explained that one of the
reasons was that Sayagues was a supporter of Unita, Jonas Savimbi's Angolan
rebel movement. She says the opposite is the truth.
Winter was said to have
obtained his new permit to continue to work as a journalist here through
fraudulent means. If he broke the law, why not arrest him and let justice take
its course?
But as we now know, the course of justice in Zimbabwe is studded
with zvikwambo and zvidhoma (goblins) who will do any evil for their master,
including murder.
The government says it expects the independent and foreign
media to reflect, in their coverage, the reality of the political situation:
that Zanu PF rules - okay?
Until some of us are satisfied that President
Mugabe did not boast “we have many degrees in violence”, it won't be easy to
separate his government from violence.
Until there is conclusive evidence
that Zanu PF did not hire the war veterans to terrorise voters in the run-up to
the election, not many journalists can believe the government and Zanu PF want
real peace.
Until someone can dispel the strong suspicion that the
government, Zanu PF or the army or both had something to do with the bombing of
the printing press of The Daily News, it will be very difficult to believe they
wish us well.
In broad terms, until the existence of this contemptible
triumvirate of violence of the government, Zanu PF and the war veterans against
human rights advocates, including the independent media, can be conclusively
disproved, we must remain unmoved by their protests.
All the evidence
suggests they are so desperate to hang to power they will do absolutely
anything, including murder. But deportations and bombings have never silenced
journalists.
Deporting and bombing ideas have been tried before. It's like
attacking the truth. As long as Good exists in the world, how can Evil triumph?
bsaidi@dailynews.co.zw
Uganda, Rwanda must pull out of DRC first: Zimbabwe | |
2/28/01 8:03:09 AM (GMT +2) |
Staff Reporter
The Zimbabwe Defence
Forces (ZDF) will only pull out of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo
(DRC) after Uganda and Rwanda have left the vast central African country, the
forces’ spokesman Colonel Mbonisi Gatsheni said yesterday.
The Monitor, a Ugandan
national newspaper, has reported that the country will withdraw 1 500 soldiers
from eastern DRC next week ahead of a United Nations (UN) 15 May deadline for
foreign forces to pull out of the former Zaire.
A UN team has already left
Kinshasa, the capital of the DRC, for the south-eastern town of Pweto to prepare
for the deployment of UN observers who will monitor the disengagement of Rwandan
troops, said The Monitor, quoting a UN spokesman.
The dispatch of the
observers follows the recent announcement by Rwandan President Paul Kagame that
Rwandan soldiers would be withdrawing 200 kilometres from Pweto in the direction
of their own country. UN observers left on Friday for Pweto.
Gatsheni said:
“Aggressors should move out first and we will move out last.
Even the Lusaka
Agreement recognises that, and I am told the UN endorsed that aggressors should
move out first.”
Gatsheni, speaking from the defence headquarters on Monday,
said: “I am sure it has been repeated several times by the political leadership
that the ZDF is in the DRC on the invitation of that country’s government.
Should our stay become untenable then we will pull out.
“They would not even
stay a day longer as the President has said in the past.
“However, not
everybody, even some Zimbabweans, are happy with the ZDF involvement in the
DRC.”
Gatsheni was responding to reports that Ugandan troops were preparing
to leave the DRC.
The Monitor reported that Brigadier Katumba Wamala, the
commander of Operation Safe Haven, Uganda’s military mission in the DRC, has
camped in the northeastern DRC town of Buta to prepare two battalions to
withdraw, the army said yesterday.
“Arrangements are being made to fly them
home. But we cannot give you the exact date because movement of troops is a
military secret,” state defence minister Steven Kavuma said, according to The
Monitor.
“We are committed to pulling out the troops and are assembling in
Buta,” he said.
Buta was the assembling centre for over 4 000 soldiers from
Kisangani who were withdrawn last August.
Uganda’s move comes ahead of the
UN Security Council resolution which called on the warring sides in the DRC to
begin implementing disengagement plans and urged all parties to the Lusaka
ceasefire accord to adopt plans for a total withdrawal by 15 May.
The UN
demands are contained in Resolution 1341, which was unanimously adopted.
The
Council said it would closely monitor progress in the resolution’s
implementation and would send a mission to the region.
300 stranded after army officials turn them away | |
2/28/01 8:09:00 AM (GMT +2) |
Staff Reporter
About 300 aspiring army
recruits were stranded in Bulawayo last week after authorities at the Imbizo
Recruit Training depot allegedly turned them away on suspicion they were MDC
supporters.
The recruits said the
authorities targeted those who came from towns where Zanu PF lost to the MDC in
last June’s election.
But, a defence forces spokesman dismissed the
allegations yesterday.
The youths were among about 1 200 who passed through
the initial selection process at the All Arms Battle School in Nyanga in May
last year.
They were invited to Bulawayo for final selection on Thursday
last week.
Part of the letter inviting them for the training read: “You are
required to report at the Recruit Training Depot (Imbizo Barracks) in Bulawayo
on 22 February 2001 for the final selection.
“On successful completion of
the selection process, you will be attested into the Zimbabwe National Army and
immediately commence a six-month recruit training.” The hopeful candidates said
they were shocked when security officers vetting recruits at the entrance
allegedly turned away those who came from constituencies won by the MDC.
“There were about 300 of us when we arrived,” said one of the youths from
Harare.
“We were not even allowed into the camp. There were officers at the
gate wearing red berets.
“They looked at our national identity documents and
those of us who came from towns were told to go away and ask the MDC to give us
jobs.”
He said most of them had no busfare for the return trip back home.
“We had to look for people to lend us money,” he said. “I was lucky to get
busfare but I don’t know what happened to my colleagues.”
Colonel Mbonisi
Gatsheni, the army spokesman said:
“I don’t think there is substance in
that.
“The selection was for people who had been short-listed but as usual
there are some who want to take advantage and try their luck when they were not
invited.”
From the Daily Telegraph (UK), 28 February
Mugabe's dismissal of top judge backfires
Harare - President Robert Mugabe's attempt to bring Zimbabwe's judiciary under his control backfired yesterday when the Chief Justice refused to accept his dismissal from office. Instead Anthony Gubbay, 68, who is one of the last whites holding high office in Zimbabwe, said he was now "reconsidering" his previous agreement to retire early. After months of pressure and vilification, Chief Justice Gubbay had agreed to go on leave from March 1 and formally retire on June 30. He is officially due to step down in April next year.
He first learned that he was now to be dismissed from yesterday's edition of The Herald, the government newspaper. Under the headline "Gubbay to leave office tomorrow", were extracts from a letter written to him by Patrick Chinamasa, the justice minister. Mr Gubbay had never received such a letter. Mr Chinamasa accused him of reneging on an agreement that his successor would be appointed the moment he went on leave. He said the Chief Justice was guilty of misconduct and wrote: "Accordingly, your term of office as Chief Justice terminates on Feb 28, 2001, by which time you should have cleared your belongings from your chambers." The constitution allows for a chief justice to be removed only after an independent tribunal has completed an investigation into charges of misconduct.
In a statement issued through his lawyers, Chief Justice Gubbay, who was born in Manchester and educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, said Mr Chinamasa's actions were "unlawful". He added: "The Chief Justice will not vacate his chambers and his official residence. In the light of the unexpected and unwelcome developments, the Chief Justice will be reconsidering the question of his early retirement."
Last night Zimbabwe's lawyers were hoping that the Chief Justice would decide to stay in office. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court has infuriated Mr Mugabe by striking down his "fast track" land seizure programme and ordering the eviction of thousands of squatters from white-owned farms. A mob of militant supporters of Mr Mugabe, who is facing impeachment proceedings, stormed the court last November. Two other members of its bench, Nicholas McNally and Ahmed Ebrahim, have also faced calls for their resignations. Adrian de Bourbon, chairman of the Bar Council, said: "The government has decided to act illegally, outside of the constitution, and in effect sack the Chief Justice. There is no provision in law for them to do that. They pushed him too far and he decided to fight back. I don't know how the government is going to react, but he has done the right thing."
Last night the government was still insisting that the Chief Justice would have to go. Prof Jonathan Moyo, the Information Minister, said: "He is reneging and that is gross misconduct. We have to bring him to book. Come midnight tomorrow, the Chief Justice's term of office will terminate, his office will be vacant."
From The Daily News, 27 February
US invites outgoing Chief Justice for official visit
The new US government of President George W Bush has invited outgoing Chief Justice Anthony Gubbay for an official visit to Washington. According to a statement from the US Embassy in Harare, the purpose of the visit was to discuss matters of mutual concern with US government officials, the judiciary, members of Congress, leaders of legal and human rights organisations, and the role of the Judiciary in promoting democracy in Zimbabwe.
The Chief Justice would not comment on the visit yesterday. His private secretary said he would not give interviews or talk to the Press on any issue. The Chief Justice has recently been forced to give notice to resign by the government, which launched a concerted campaign to remove from the Supreme Court all the judges in whom Zanu PF says it has lost confidence. But the American Embassy in Harare said in the statement that Gubbay had accepted the invitation, although no dates have been set for the visit. An embassy spokesman said Gubbay would be "warmly received" in the US as he had a "sterling reputation" as a jurist who had made important contributions to justice and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Gubbay's landmark visit to the US and the recognition of his expertise by the US authorities come after President Mugabe and Zanu PF said they had lost trust in him and the judiciary he leads. Gubbay, a British-trained lawyer born 69 years ago in Manchester, came to Zimbabwe 40 years ago. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1990 after the retirement of the late Chief Justice Enoch Dumbutshena. Gubbay fell foul of the government for passing judgments upholding the rule of law, particularly when war veterans forcibly occupied more than 1 700 commercial farms.
From The Times (UK), 28 February
Harare priest survives road-ramming
A prominent churchman in Zimbabwe has survived what he believes was an attempt to kill him in a car crash. Canon Tim Neill said that a government-owned vehicle deliberately tried to run him off the road as he was returning home after giving a speech criticising the Government. "Two strangers in the audience seemed very interested in which route I was going to take," he said. "My supporters pleaded with me not to drive after dark. I didn't listen and an hour later we were hit. The police said it was an accident." Canon Neill added: "Sadly, my country is becoming a very dangerous place and I am truly scared for my family and myself."
Opposition politicians are threatened daily with murder, as are judges, journalists, farmers and businessmen. Canon Neill said that he was told about a plot to kill him after he refused to resign as Vicar General of Harare and tried to stop a friend of President Mugabe from winning the election for Bishop of Harare. The canon looked close to tears as he said that he, his wife, Carol, and their daughters, Rachel, 18, and Sarah, 16, may have to leave his native country. His brother, Paul, a medical professor, left for New Zealand this week. "I have been warned that if I continue to resist, then I can expect the war veterans to get involved and I am sure they are not lovers of my soul," he said.
From Topper Whitehead, spokesman for the plaintiffs in the US suit against President Mugabe
In response to recent statements by the Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, emphatically denying that President Mugabe appealed for immunity:
The letter received by the United States District Court in the case No Civ.6666 (VM) Adella Chiminya et al - plaintiffs VS. Robert Gabriel Mugabe et al - defendants is in my possession and is headed Suggestion of Immunity submitted by the United States of America.
Para 2 of the letter reads ........... informed the Department of Justice that the Government of Zimbabwe on November 1, 2000 formally requested the Government of the United States to suggest the immunity of the President and the Foreign Minister from this lawsuit. I do not think that there could be any clearer clearly indication that Jonathan Moyo is out of touch, or being misinformed, or is deliberately lying for political gain. The letter is concluded ........., the United States respectfully suggests the immunity of President Mugabe ......
The letter does NOT give Mugabe immunity - it is a suggestion that the court should consider this when the case is brought before it. Remember that Jonathan Moyo denied the case even existed in the first instance. I have a copy of the letter signed by DAVID S Jones ( DJ-5276) for anyone who wishes any further proof of the misinformation and lies that the ZTV is dishing out to the tax paying public.
From Pan African News Agency, 27 February
Leon Slams Mugabe After Fact-finding Trip
Cape Town - Tony Leon, the leader of South Africa's official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), on Tuesday urged the government to make its policy towards Zimbabwe known, saying the policy of "gentle persuasion" towards president Robert Mugabe and the ruling Zanu-PF party had failed to make any impact. Leon has just returned from a two-day visit to Zimbabwe where he met Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Zimbabwean MDC, and his deputy, Gibson Sibanda as well as farmers and businessmen.
He said South Africa's policy of gentle persuasion towards Zimbabwe had failed and it appeared that president Mugabe was determined to secure a fifth term in office. He said it was evident to the DA delegation and the people they spoke to in Zimbabwe that Mugabe was "prepared to use any means including violence to secure victory". "The situation in Zimbabwe is dire with some suggesting civil insurrection and clearly there is a serious economic meltdown. On the evidence of the people that we met, a campaign of terror has been unleashed and is spreading from its previous confinements in the commercial farms and communal land areas to the townships, towns and cities of Zimbabwe," he said.
He said compounding the crisis is the fact that 60% of the population is unemployed, one million workers have lost jobs over the past 18 months, inflation stands at 55% and there are no foreign reserves. "The characterisation of the meltdown in Zimbabwe as being about land and land hunger is simply not true. While every party and group we spoke to acknowledges and is willing to implement land reform - including the Commercial Farmers Union - the reality is reflected in the words of Archbishop of Bulawayo, Puis Ncube, that the land reform exercise is a cloak for a campaign against the opposition," he said.
The fiery opposition leader said a campaign of terror has begun which has succeeded in terrorising the farming community, the judiciary, the press and the opposition. "In sum, and in our view, any future dealings the South African government has with President Mugabe and his government has to be premised on very specific conditions which South Africa should calibrate depending on Zimbabwe's compliance or non- compliance with them." He recommended that South Africa should invoke article 4 of the SADC declaration, treaty and protocol of 1992 which commits member states to protecting human rights, democracy and the rule of law. He also called for a cessation by South Africa of endless increments, aid and advantage to Mugabe without any quid pro quo in return.
"There are a range of specific measures the UN and Commonwealth can take and which have been successfully applied against other rogue nations and pariah states including freezing foreign assets and funds owned by individuals, which would include a fair number of the ZANU hierarchy, restrictions on travel by government ministers and an arms embargo such as that being applied to UNITA. These are but a selection of the menu of diplomatic and political measures and options with which we should confront the Zimbabwe government in the event of their non-compliance with minimum international and regional agreements to which they are party," Leon added.
Comment from The Times (UK), 28 February
Leaders 'degree in violence' will not guarantee his hold on power
R W Johnson
The present agony of Zimbabwe stems from the determination of a discredited liberation movement elite - headed by Robert Mugabe - to cling to power whatever it takes. President Mugabe has boasted of his "degree in violence" and he has used beatings, torture, organised gang rapes and murder against his opponents. The oddity is that Zimbabwe is notionally a democratic state, so violence and terror is exercised through a prism of electoralism.
Everything now focuses on the presidential election, which must take place before April next year. Mr Mugabe, who will then be 78, gives every impression that he wants to run again. There are, though, insistent rumours that he may call a snap election as soon as July or August and at the last moment stand aside in favour of Emmerson Mnangagwa, the former head of the secret police, whose hands are equally bloodstained by the Matabeland massacres of the 1980s and who has as much to lose as Mr Mugabe from allowing an examination of the Government's human rights record.
The Helen Suzman Foundation did three surveys of voter opinion in Zimbabwe last year. The first found that 36 per cent wanted Mr Mugabe's Zanu PF party to stay in power; 63 per cent thought it was "time for a change". The second survey, for the June general election, showed that in a free poll the opposition MDC would have won 62.7 per cent of the vote. The third, done in September to October, showed Morgan Tsvangirai, the MDC leader, ahead of Mr Mugabe in a presidential election by 41 per cent to 15 per cent. Nearly a quarter of voters said that Mr Mugabe should be offered immunity from prosecution provided he resigned as President; 51 per cent said that even if he quit he should be put on trial.
There followed two by-elections, the first in Marondera West, previously held by Zanu PF. War veterans and intelligence operatives moved in and violence and intimidation were used to bully opposition supporters. In the event, the MDC polled much the same vote as it had in June while the Zanu PF vote fell, greatly reducing its majority. The Government learnt its lesson. In Bikita West, which the MDC had won narrowly in June, it concentrated not on intimidating opposition voters not to vote but on corralling everyone but the MDC hard core to turn out: 2,000 veterans and other Zanu PF activists arrived in the constituency, plus 47 military encampments. Some 7,000 Zanu PF voters were moved into the constituency; about 4,800 MDC voters were struck off the rolls. The chiefs and headmen were told that they would lose their jobs if their people did not vote solidly for the Government. Zanu (PF) won handily.
The President knows that a similar effort is not possible in all 120 seats at the same time - and while Mr Tsvangirai's name is on the ballot there is a sporting chance that voters may take the chance to ditch him. Hence the decision to destroy the local press, expel foreign journalists, bully the judiciary and the attempts to disqualify Mr Tsvangirai. Already Mr Mugabe has announced that no foreign election observers will be allowed next time, but for Zanu PF to feel safe the opposition and the big institutions of an independent civil society have to be destroyed now.
Comment from The Guardian (UK), 28 February
Dreams lie buried in a land of hate
I wonder what Mugabe would say if my Uncle Guy was still alive
Angela Neustatter
Watching each new, hate-filled excess of Robert Mugabe's directed against the whites who he now condemns as the source of Zimbabwe's problems, I wonder how he would have dealt with my Uncle Guy if he had still been living there today. For just six years ago, when Guy Clutton Brock died, Mugabe came to his memorial service in Britain to collect his ashes and take them to be scattered in Zimbabwe at Hero's Acre - the first time a white man had been buried there.
My uncle was an improbable hero for the black liberation government in a country which, during his time there - he arrived in 1949 and was removed by the white regime in 1971 - knew only oppression by Southern Rhodesia's white leaders. He was a quintessential blue-blooded Englishman with his blond, rangy good looks, a double-barrelled name and a Magdalene College education. He had no idea what to expect when he decided to take his agricultural skills to Africa. He simply felt it was "the right place to be".
He and his wife Molly went to St Faith's Mission in Rusape, although he had no religious intentions for his work. But he was shocked by the poverty and sickness he found among the community of 700 blacks attempting to farm smallholdings eroded by years of over-use. It was clear to him that they needed help to achieve rights and equality with the whites. He started by refusing to be the boss man. Instead, in what sounds a quaint and quixotic gesture these days, he formed the African-European cooperative, with an African manager, herdsman and tractor driver, while the bursar and stockmen were Europeans. The crops flourished as farming methods improved, word spread that "CB" could be trusted, and it was here that Guy helped write the constitution for the Southern Rhodesia African National Congress - he was asked to be president, but refused. Mugabe became a close friend; Guy and Molly said they felt he would be "good for the country".
Needless to say, Guy, who had been granted citizenship in 1951, was not so popular with the white regime - he was living, eating and working alongside blacks, demonstrating they could live together equally. In 1959 he was detained without trial, but promised freedom if he would relinquish his citizenship and go. He refused: "African nationalism had not been achieved," he explained simply, and he and Molly - who had set up the Mukuwapasi Clinic, where she worked as a physiotherapist with children - took themselves across the border to Botswana for a while, then returned and bought a large piece of land with like-minded whites - it would not have been possible for blacks to purchase it.
The Cold Comfort Farm cooperative outside Salisbury drew unemployed young men and women, including people like Didimus Mutasa and Moven Mahachi, who went on to become political leaders after independence. Agricultural skills were learned and political ideas discussed endlessly. The white police regularly searched the farm for "terrorist weapons", but it was Ian Smith who, in 1971, passed the Citizenship Act and kicked Guy out. There are pictures of a large crowd of Africans weeping at the airport as he went, shouting: "I am glad to share in the fellowship of the dispossessed... I regard the present regime as only temporary."
Guy died happy, having seen independence achieved, and it seemed that when Mugabe came to power the memory of that group of committed and determined whites held a meaning. It seemed the new president had a real will to make reconciliation work, and for more than 15 years blacks and whites appeared to live pretty much peaceably alongside each other. And although the much-needed land reform which would give Africans some of the quality land mostly still owned and farmed by whites clearly needed to be done, the hope had been that Mugabe would bring it about in a measured way.
That all appears a sad, sick dream now. But there is another question worth asking: should blacks, once they gain independence, be obliged to go on paying obeisance to even the most supportive of whites? It is not a question for me to answer, but a young African who became a friend of my son's while he was teaching in Zimbabwe a few years ago and remains in touch, believes his generation gains from hanging on to those memories and understanding that there are whites who believe in justice for Africans. He has as good a reason as any to hate whites - his father was killed by a Rhodesian policeman - but he says he has been happy growing up in a country where it has been possible to be friends with whites and see reconciliation, for all its imperfections, working.
Clearly Mugabe does not listen to this new generation, and I suspect if Guy were in Zimbabwe now the colour of his skin would be the point, not the "immense contribution" which Mugabe spoke of him having made just six years ago.
Alarming silence in the nation | |
2/28/01 8:30:05 AM (GMT +2) |
Joan Brans, Beatrice
ON THE ZBC news two
weeks ago, a headmaster from a rural government school was appealing to the
public and donor community for money to repair the premises, broken chairs and
equip a laboratory.
It is very noble and
conscientious of the headmaster to want what should already be there for the
children in his school.
What confused me was why he was begging when every
working Zimbabwean is taxed beyond their limit.
Has he asked himself why his
school is in disrepair when billions of dollars are thrown down the drain in the
Democratic Republic of Congo?
Has he asked himself why Professor Jonathan
Moyo’s and President Mugabe’s children attend the very colonial private
expensive schools, complete with bodyguards and chauffeur-driven cars, and not
the ordinary government schools?
Do Zimbabweans who have the misfortune of
using Harare Hospital or rural clinics ask themselves why there are no basic
medicines, and why thousands of people are dying unnecessarily through lack of
medical care? Those waiting for hours in petrol queues, are they asking
themselves why?
Are we asking ourselves why we are being so negative when
the police and army are beating and terrorising the people on the farms and in
high-density suburbs?
Why are we silent when judges are being forced to
resign and the government queries and scorns the highest court in the land?
Most importantly, to the Christians in Zimbabwe, are we asking ourselves why
the Church and we are so passive and silent, speaking out on the land issue but
not on the murders, rapes and beatings of the congregation?
When on
Judgement Day, God asks “What did you do about it all?” will we be proud of our
answer?
In the near future, food shortages are coming, yet why is the
Minister of Agriculture assuring us there is enough grain?
The answer to all
my questions is simple.
Zimbabwe has a government that has no respect or
concern for its citizens and has squandered money on a war that will bring the
downfall of the country and the government.
Sadly, it might be too late by
then and the economy may never recover.
What is the solution?
Every
citizen has a duty before the next election to ask themselves and more
importantly, their families in the rural areas, “Why?” to all these questions.
The answer will be the same every time an incompetent government which has
lost direction.
It is now up to each and every one of us to change this!
Classic case of a revolution devouring its own children | |
2/28/01 8:34:55 AM (GMT +2) |
A Zimbabwean, USA
WHEN we celebrated
independence in 1980, we thought the liberators wished freedom for all of us.
Now it turns out that they
fought for the freedom to subject us all.
What freedom do we have if we are
not allowed to think for ourselves?
What freedom do we have if we cannot
tell our leaders that things are not going well for us?
What freedom do we
have when the very people who liberated this country deny us the right to choose
which newspaper to read?
If all this and worse is done in the name of
freedom, is that freedom worth anything?
If being human entails the
possibility of making mistakes, why should the leaders take exception to
criticism unless they are not human?
If Zimbabwe is for all of us, why
should a bunch of freedom fighters think only they alone have the right to enjoy
freedom?
Isn’t this a case of a revolution devouring its own children?
The question I would like to raise for the “Hitlers” of this country is: How
would they want history to remember them?
Let’s rid our land of evil | |
2/28/01 8:36:00 AM (GMT +2) |
Lancelot Saungweme, Dangamvura, Mutare
AS WE edge towards 2002
for the presidential election, it is imperative that the tormented masses remain
focussed.
By then the nation would
have been plunged into a quagmire of incoherence and the economy in more dire
straits.
Let us take this as an opportunity to cleanse this land of all the
evil that we are now being identified with. Fighting them will only make them
more prepared and very difficult to beat. Together with all those in the
communal areas let’s pull in one direction. What we are going through is all
because the rural majority chose to do it the old way.