http://www.timeslive.co.za
Reuters | 09 March, 2013
17:19
Zimbabwean Finance Minister Tendai Biti says the country will
struggle to
afford the two votes - a referendum and an election - which are
due to be
held this year in the space of a few months.
Biti, who is
also secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC), said the
referendum would cost $85 million and these funds were not
available from
Zimbabwe's 2013 budget of $4 billion.
"Clearly Zimbabwe doesn't have
sufficient funds to hold both the referendum
and the election. More so when
these two important events are following so
closely after the national
census we had done in August and September," Biti
told reporters ahead of an
MDC rally in the South African city of Pretoria.
The MDC party is headed
by Morgan Tsvangirai who went into government with
his rival President
Robert Mugabe after a violent and disputed vote in 2008.
Zimbabwe will
ask its citizens to decide on a new constitution in a
referendum on March 16
and adoption of the document would pave the way for
elections in July,
potentially ending Mugabe's 33-year run as president.
"We expect the
international community will come to our assistance. We are
also trying to
mobilise resources from the domestic economy using various
instruments
including treasury bills, bonds and so forth," said Biti of the
country's
attempts to raise the money it needs to go to the polls.
But the plan to
seek funding for the votes from foreign donors or the
private sector could
be a hard sell. Western governments have questioned
human rights abuses in
the country and businesses like platinum producer
Zimplats are wary of
rapidly-changing policies that threaten profitability.
As leaders of the
fragile power-sharing government, Mugabe and Tsvangirai
have agreed on the
terms of a new constitution to strengthen the powers of
parliament and curb
those of the president.
Tsvangirai, who accuses Mugabe of using violence
to cling to power, has
promised to fix an economy analysts say has been
ruined by controversial
policies such as the seizure of commercial farms to
resettle landless local
people.
"The 2013 election is without a doubt
easily the most important election
after the 1980 election in our country.
It's a make-or-break election," said
Biti, who was in Pretoria to rally
support for the MDC among Zimbabweans
living in South Africa.
The
party believes the two million or so Zimbabweans living in neighbouring
South Africa have a pivotal role to play in the election and is encouraging
them to return home to vote.
http://www.voazimbabwe.com
Blessing Zulu
08.03.2013
WASHINGTON — Zimbabwean
President Robert Mugabe met Finance Minister Tendai
Biti and Justice
Minister Patrick Chinamasa on Friday to discuss election
funding amid
reports that some hardliners in his Zanu-PF party are pushing
government to
withdraw its request from the United Nations for elections
funding.
A
United Nations assessment team led by Tadjoudine Ali Diabacte, a member of
the UN Electoral Assistance Division, is expected to visit Harare to assess
the country’s needs ahead of the elections.
But the state-controlled
Herald newspaper reports that Zimbabwe is
considering withdrawing its
request because Harare is not happy with what it
calls conditions tied to
the request.
Zanu-PF sources told VOA that some in the party fear that
the UN may
require election observer teams from Western countries to be
admitted if
assistance is provided. Zanu-PF says Western election observers
will not be
welcome.
Biti confirmed that some so-called hardliners in
Zanu-PF oppose the UN
mission and want Harare to re-think its
position.
In a statement, the United Nations says that this type of
assessment is
standard procedure whenever the world body is asked to provide
funding.
VOA could not reach Mr. Chinamasa or Zanu-PF spokesman Rugare
Gumbo, as
they were said to be in meetings.
However, VOA reached Mr.
Biti, who described his meeting with President
Mugabe as fruitful and said
he expects the UN mission to come to Harare next
week though there is
resistance from some elements in Zanu-PF.
Clifford Mashiri, an
international relations expert who was once attached to
the Zimbabwe Mission
in Ethiopia, said the UN as the funding agency has
every right to assess the
situation on the ground.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, March 10, 12:57
AM
PRETORIA, South Africa — A top official in the party of Zimbabwe’s
prime
minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, says he is concerned that political
violence is
again taking root ahead of a March 16 referendum on a new
constitution and
elections later in the year.
Finance Minister Tendai
Biti said in South Africa on Saturday that he is
also worried that some
foreign observers will not be allowed into Zimbabwe
to monitor the voting.
Top Zimbabwean officials have said that African and
regional monitors will
be allowed, but Western observers will be banned.
Tsvangirai’s party,
formerly the opposition, is in a shaky coalition with
President Robert
Mugabe’s party.
Biti has previously complained of arson and numerous
other attacks this year
that he has blamed on Mugabe’s supporters. Both
Mugabe and Tsvangirai have
called for violence-free elections.
http://www.newzimbabwe.com
08/03/2013 00:00:00
by AFP
POLICE
charged rights activist and former ZBC news reader Jestina Mukoko
with a
litany of alleged offences on Friday, hours after she handed herself
in to
the authorities, her lawyer said.
"Police have charged her for allegedly
operating an unregistered
organisation," Harrison Nkomo, her lawyer told
AFP.
Other charges included the smuggling of radio sets and mobile phones
and
broadcasting without a licence, Nkomo added.
"They have released
her into our custody and said they will call us when
they are ready to go to
court."
The allegations come ahead of a March 16 referendum on a new
constitution
and crunch elections that will decide who will lead the
country.
Mukoko handed herself to police on Friday morning accompanied by
her lawyers
and spent three hours with the police as the charges were
read.
Nkomo described the meeting as "cordial".
Police charges
against Mukoko come weeks after a raid at the Zimbabwe Peace
Project (ZPP)
where she is the director.
In 2008, Mukoko was seized from her home and
detained at an undisclosed
location before being taken to the notorious
Chikurubi prison, a
maximum-security centre outside Harare.
Her
lawyers claimed state agents severely tortured her and forced her to
confess
to banditry and treason.
Serious threat
She was charged in 2009
with plotting to overthrow long-ruling President
Robert Mugabe, but the
charges were later dismissed.
The prosecution accused her of recruiting
people for terror training in
neighbouring Botswana, a claim rejected by
Botswana and Prime Minister Mogan
Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic
Change (MDC).
State media on Friday quoted police commissioner general,
Augustine Chihuri
appealing to people knowing Mukoko's whereabouts to report
to any police
station.
Alleged government harassment has spiked ahead
of a referendum on March 16
and general elections later this
year.
Police last month vowed to crack down on non-governmental
organisations
saying some pose a "serious security threat".
In February,
authorities raided the offices of ZPP, a human rights NGO,
purportedly
looking for "subversive materials and illegal immigrants".
They seized
several documents and other materials.
Detectives have forcibly entered the
offices of local poll observer group
the Zimbabwe Election Support Network
(ZESN) and also confiscated documents.
In December they ransacked the
offices of rights group Zimrights.
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk
09.03.13
by ZLHR
We, the undersigned Zimbabwean
Civil Society Organizations, condemn the
sustained and escalating assault on
non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
involved in civic education, human
rights monitoring, public outreach and
service provision by the
State.
These flagrant, intimidatory and repressive attacks on civil
society
organizations and their leaders culminated in the Friday 08 March
2013
charging of Zimbabwe Peace Project national director Jestina Mukoko
with
contravening the Private Voluntary Organisations Act, the Broadcasting
Services Act and the Customs and Excise Act. The criminalization of the work
of civil society by the Government of National Unity is in direct
contradiction with the letter and Spirit of the Global Political Agreement.
It appears to us that the persecution of Jestina, who is not at anytime a
fugitive from justice, is a direct victimization of an individual, who has
been a victim of abduction by State security agents. State actions against
Jestina were condemned by the Supreme Court and her prosecution
quashed.
We have over a lengthy period of time taken note and documented
the
intensive harassment and obstruction of the work of CSOs through
intimidations, raids, issuance of vague and generalised search warrants,
arrests, persecution and prosecution.
Such harassment is meant to
discredit civil society as unpatriotic and
devoid of national interest. The
relentless assault on CSOs and accusing
them of several unfounded
misdemeanors is to suggest to the public the
existence of a wide-ranging
conspiracy targeting the stability of the
country and to paint civil society
organisations as a danger to State
security.
Zimbabwean authorities,
particularly the police, are fully aware of the role
of civil society in a
democracy but they have deliberately elected to
mislead public opinion about
our legitimate activities and continuously seek
to impeach us on flimsy
grounds.
We unequivocally deny all the insinuations and willful
misrepresentations of
our legitimate work. These allegations are meant to
distract the attention
of the public and international community from the
important issues which
the country is faced with. The issues include, among
others, the full
implementation of the Global Political Agreement, the
holding of free and
fair elections and critical institutional and
legislative reforms meant to
incubate the respect of the will of the
people.
We hold the three political parties that form the inclusive
government as
responsible for the current crackdown on CSOs. Their failure
to stop the
unjustified attacks on CSOs, is testimony that they are involved
in the
coordination and implementation of the attacks and are not concerned
with
the challenges faced by those outside their ivory towers.
We
therefore call upon;
1. the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe to
immediately cease the
harassment and criminalisation of CSOs and urgently
take measures to ensure
the protection of human rights
defenders.
2. We further implore the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe
to create an
enabling operating environment for civil society in accordance
with the
Constitution, various regional and international norms to which
Zimbabwe has
bound itself through the African Union and the United Nations,
which clearly
protect the rights of human rights defenders to associate,
organise and
carry out peaceful activities, and the right of human rights
organisations
to exist and be protected by law. In particular, the following
minimum
requirements in policy and practice for civil society to operate
should be
guaranteed: freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom
of
assembly and the right to operate free from unwarranted State
interference.
3. the police and prosecuting authorities to exercise
professionalism and
carry out their duties in a non-partisan manner and
desist from the
intimidation of human rights defenders.
We are
convinced that these concerted attempts to criminalise and discredit
our
interventions in communities are wholly associated with the impending
elections. We thus call upon the Southern African Development Community, as
the guarantors of the coalition government and in line with its earlier
summit resolutions, and the African Union, to exhort the Government of
Zimbabwe to allow CSOs in Zimbabwe to operate without being criminalised,
intimidated and harassed, as key prerequisites for the holding of free and
fair.
ENDS
Endorsed by;
Combined Harare Residents
Association; Counselling Services Unit; Crisis in
Zimbabwe Coalition;
Kubatana; Media Alliance of Zimbabwe; National
Association of
Non-Governmental Organisations; National Constitutional
Assembly; Women’s
Coalition of Zimbabwe; Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions;
Zimbabwe Election
Support Network; Zimbabwe Human Rights Association;
Zimbabwe Human Rights
NGO Forum; Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights; Zimbabwe
Peace Project;
Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association
http://www.voazimbabwe.com
Irwin
Chifera
08.03.2013
HARARE — The Institute of Democracy in Southern
Africa (IDASA) launched its
inaugural Democracy Index on Zimbabwe on Friday,
noting that democracy
levels in the country are currently at their
lowest.
The Index, titled “Compromise or Compromised? An Assessment of
Transitional
Democracy in Zimbabwe,” says the country is still far from
being democratic.
The Index accuses Harare of stifling citizens, leaving
them with little room
for political participation, adding that patterns of
participation are
dominated by patronage networks and political
violence.
Kudakwashe Chitsike, one of the women who participated in the
research, said
there is lack of an enabling environment for those with
dissenting voices.
Although elections are held regularly, Chitsike said
they are done to
promote a facade of democracy and are marred by violence,
terror and
corruption.
Rumbidzai Dube, who also contributed to the
report, pointed out that
citizens’ security is threatened by those in power
and therefore citizens do
not believe they can influence
decision-making.
Dube said the executive, legislature and the judiciary
do not submit to
scrutiny, adding that where accountability mechanisms exist
they are not
fully utilized.
The report says while the crisis prior
to the formation of the inclusive
government had a negative impact on
socio-economic factors and stripped
citizens of their dignity, the unity
government has crafted policies to
address the problems.
IDASA says
the Zimbabweans can use the democracy index to enhance research
capacity and
lobby for greater democratic depth.
http://mg.co.za/
09 MAR 2013 19:25 - SUSAN NJANJI
The
party of Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is concerned about
the
"hygiene" and integrity of crucial elections expected later this
year.
Finance Minister Tendai Biti, who is also the Movement for
Democratic Change
(MDC) secretary general, expressed his parties concerns
over voter
registration and violence issues, saying: "There's massive
challenges with
the voter registration exercise that is taking
place."
"It's the ordinary hygiene issue of the election, the integrity
of the
election, we are talking about," he added.
General elections
expected in July should end a shaky coalition government
between
Tsvangirai's MDC and President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party.
Biti said
there was need to "vaccinate" the vote against violence as "self
evidently
in the last few weeks there have been signs, sprouting shoots of
violence
... potential replication of the 2008 status quo."
The MDC has since the
start of the year recorded over 120 incidents of
violation and abuse of
individuals, he said.
These and other concerns such as inequitable access
to the public media by
the MDC, have been raised with the regional bloc
Southern African
Development Community (SADC).
An SADC security organ
comprising three presidents met in Pretoria on
Saturday to discuss Zimbabwe,
and South African President Jacob Zuma said
the grouping "will take
necessary action" on the issues raised by the MDC.
Biti said voter
registration is underfunded and inaccessible to many
citizens.
"The
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission is unable to roll out a mobile voter
registration," he told a news conference in Pretoria.
Two thirds of
the six-million voters on the roll are dead, said Biti,
discussing
irregularities with the crucial list.
"But unfortunately those four
million who are dead have had a tendency to
resurrect on election
day."
Furthermore state security forces have been used to up the stakes
in
Mugabe's favour, Biti claimed.
'Stop or exacerbate the
crisis'
"The state machinery is busy reinforcing and mobilising soldiers and
other
members of the armed faction of the state to actually register, to the
detriment of ordinary civilians."
"Ordinary people are not
registering to vote," he added.
Zimbabwe's security forces are known to
be pro-Mugabe.
Biti further expressed concern at statements by his peers
in the coalition
government that Western observers will not be allowed to
monitor the vote.
"As a country we should have nothing to hide ... (and
therefore) anyone
whether from Timbuktu, Beijing or Bali ... you should be
allowed to come."
The upcoming polls were "the most important" since a
vote just after
independence in 1980, he added.
"It's a make-or-break
election as far as the ordinary average Zimbabwean is
concerned," he
said.
"This election will either stop the crisis, bring a legitimate and
sustainable outcome or will further exacerbate the crisis."
Mugabe
and Tsvangirai were forced to share power after deadly polls in 2008.
But
reforms have been bumpy and a failed vote would mean "all the four years
that we have spent in the unity government would have been a waste of time
and we will be back to square zero," said Biti.
Zimbabwe holds a
referendum next Saturday to decide on a new constitution.
SADC is deploying
observers to the referendum on Sunday.
Though the cash-strapped country
had raised enough money for the upcoming
vote, it asked for aid from the
United Nations for the general polls, said
Biti.
"Clearly Zimbabwe
doesn't have sufficient funds to hold both the referendum
and the election,"
he said. "Things are excruciatingly tight."
Biti said there were also
concerns about the "morning after" the vote.
"What mechanisms are there
to ensure that Zimbabweans will vote freely for
their next leader, and that
the next leader will be allowed to take up the
seat of office?" – AFP.
http://www.thezimbabwemail.com
by Everson Mushava 7 hours 35
minutes ago
MDC leader Welshman Ncube has been ruled out as a
serious contestant in the
forthcoming elections by political analyst and
publisher Ibbo Mandaza, who
says he is “finished politically”.
Mandaza
says the real contest will be between President Robert Mugabe and
Prime
Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
He was speaking at a New Zimbabwe Lecture Series
in Harare on Wednesday
where he also predicted another coalition government
and described Ncube as
a spent force.
But Ncube’s party hit back,
accusing Mandaza of being inconsistent, warning
those counting Ncube and his
party out that they would be doing that at
their own peril because the MDC
had gained ground lost by the MDC-T and Zanu
PF.
Mandaza said : “The next
elections will be about Tsvangirai and Mugabe. It
will be, however, hard for
Mugabe and Tsvangirai to sell themselves out to
the electorate. As for
Ncube, he is finished. None of these small parties
would have any chance. I
do not think Ncube will be able to get even half of
Tsvangirai’s votes or
even Mugabe’s.”
But Nhlanhla Dube, the MDC spokesperson, laughed off
Mandaza’s analysis
saying he lacked consistency as he recently said Ncube
was a force to reckon
with.
“How do you get spent when you are just
starting? Is he not the same person
who said Ncube was a force to reckon
with when he was addressing in Bulawayo
recently?
“Those people do not
realise that the only party that has been consistent in
staying away from
corruption is the MDC and Ncube himself. All the ground
lost by Zanu PF and
the MDC-T has been taken by the MDC and those failing to
realise that will
curse themselves,” said Dube.
Mandaza, who said Deputy Prime Minister Arthur
Mutambara had already given
up, said it would be a tall order for the
Tsvangirai’s MDC who would want to
argue that they could not perform because
they were in a coalition and
possibly use the issue of violence to try to
gain votes.
Speaking at the same debate, National Constitution Assembly boss
Lovemore
Madhuku said Zimbabwe had suffered the worst economic crisis under
Mugabe
because the Constitution had virtually surrendered the country to the
President.
“He could appoint and fire Cabinet ministers, governors,
judges and so on,
at will. We virtually surrendered the country to Mugabe
and he destroyed
it,” Madhuku said.
“I feel today that nothing has
changed on the issue of Executive powers.
That is why I am voting ‘No’ for
the Copac constitution.”
MDC-T spokesperson Douglas Mwonzora admitted giving
Mugabe too much power
caused the country’s most unforgettable economic
nightmare, but said the
draft constitution had more to offer to the
generality of Zimbabweans
besides checking Executive powers.
“Zimbabwe
needs more, not only Executive powers, and the Copac constitution
delivered
that,” Mwonzora said. - NewsDay
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/
09.03.13
by Thabani
Dube
An animal welfare organisation in Kariba has commended the National
Parks
and Wildlife Management Authority for putting down lions that claimed
two
human lives in separate attacks over the week, but blamed poachers for
causing the tragic incidents.
Cavan Warren of the Kariba
Animal Welfare Fund Trust, in an interview with
The Zimbabwean, blamed the
two deaths on poachers who laid a snare which
injured and infuriated a
lioness.
Warren said the pride of three lions, a lioness and her two
sub-adult cubs,
terrorised the Mahombekombe suburb of Kariba since
Monday.
“The large lioness had fresh scars from a snare on its neck and
one of its
back legs was injured. I think it is more than fair to say that
the poacher
that laid the snare was responsible for the death of the two
people and the
subsequent loss of the three lions,” said Warren.
“We
can be rightfully be proud of the professional manner in the way this
exercise was carried out by Parks and other interested people involved,” he
added.
“On Tuesday 5 March at approximately mid-day a report was
received that a
lady (Sharon Mahwere, 43) had been killed by a lion not more
than 200 meters
from the houses,” he narrated.
“Just prior to her
death she was with a friend (Daniel Muzarabani) who was
able to get away and
then informed the police. Parks was immediately
dispatched to the scene,”
added Warren.
He said KAWFT was informed of the incident by the Parks
Manager for the
Charara Safari Area, which covers Kariba, Samson
Chibaya.
Parks officials who had been searching the area for the female
victim
discovered a second body a (Jazel Meki Musenji, 77) who had been
killed on 4
March and had been partially devoured by the lions.
A
goat was sourced from a resident in order to bait the lions, but there was
no success during the first night.
Parks then launched extensive
patrols and carried out awareness campaigns in
surrounding communities, to
prevent further casualties, while a subsequent
ambush for the animals was
carried out but unfortunately resulted in the
accidental death of a ranger
during a shooting attempt at the canines.
“A crocodile trap was moved on
to site and baited with a dead goat.
At 1400 hours a platform measuring
three by one and a half by three meters
high was erected at a suitable
distance from the croc trap.
Half a zebra carcass was hung two and a half
meters off the ground near the
croc trap,” narrated Warren.
One cub
was shot in the evening, while the other fell into the trap while
the
lionesss, which had been evasive, was killed close to midnight on 7
March.
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk
09.03.13
by Sports
Reporter
Eleven people died in a fatal accident that involved a bus,
Kombi and
Mercedes Benz sprinter minibus 10km out of Bulawayo along the
Bulawayo-
Harare highway yesterday (Friday) afternoon.
This
accident occurred at Cement Siding after TP Transport bus loaded with
passengers and on its way from Harare side swept a Kombi and a Mercedes Benz
sprinter minibus which were also loaded with passengers and going opposite
direction. The drivers of the kombi and sprinter minibus lost control and
veered of the road. Eight people who were in the Sprinter minibus were
killed on the spot,while two people who were in Kombi were also killed on
the spot. One person who was in the bus was also killed.
When The
Zimbabwean visited the accident scene, police and fire brigade
officers were
busy retrieving bodies from wreckages while ambulances were
ferrying the
injured to United Bulawayo Hospital.
The accident happened at the same
spot where eight people were killed in
January this year after the driver of
a Botswana registered bus, Jay-Jay
Tours, lost control at a curve on a
morning marked by heavy showers and
veered off the road.
Bulawayo
police spokesperson Mandlenkosi Moyo only said: “Yes an accident
has
occurred, but I am still getting more details about that.”
Hundreds of
Zimbabweans including some senior government leaders have
perished in road
accidents that experts have largely blamed on the poor
state of roads and
human error.
This past festive season has seen a death toll of over 208
people compared
to about 147 who died in road accidents in 2011.The
accidents occurred
despite the heavy presence of traffic police on major
highways.
Traffic safety officials blame a number of factors for the
upsurge in
crashes, including the poor state of the roads and the increase
in the
volume of traffic and human error.
Police have also been
accused of contributing to the carnage by taking
bribes from traffic
offenders, enabling unroadworthy vehicles to continue
plying the roads.
http://www.rnw.nl
Published on : 9 March 2013 - 5:00am
An
election in Kenya – thousands of miles away – would ordinarily not
concern
Zimbabweans. But in March 2013, our blogger finds just the opposite
to be
true.
By Nkosana Dlamini, Harare
As I pen this piece, Kenya’s
election results are trickling in, with growing
indications that Prime
Minister Raila Odinga will be defeated by its deputy
prime minister, Uhuru
Kenyatta. This is sad news to many Zimbabweans who
oppose President Robert
Mugabe’s iron-fisted rule and who, by extension,
dreamt of an Odinga
victory.
Why is that?
A win by Odinga might have been viewed by
Zimbabweans as an example of the
kind of political trajectory that we might
follow when our elections take
place later this
year.
Parallels
Many Zimbabweans view our prime minister, Morgan
Tsvangirai, as the
legitimate winner of the 2008 presidential election that
saw Mugabe, his
main opponent, manipulate the poll to stay in power. Mugabe
lost the first
round of the Zimbabwean poll, but bounced back in a very
violent run-off
poll three months later. In Kenya, Odinga was widely viewed
as winner of the
2007 poll, but was denied his chance to rule by the
incumbent Mwai Kibaki.
In their respective elections, ethnic violence
killed 1,000+ Kenyans and a
political conflict killed 200+ Zimbabweans. The
two countries saw the
subsequent formation of coalition governments led by
incumbents. Against
this background, opposition supporters in Zimbabwe
naturally developed
sympathy for Odinga and prayed for his 2013 victory. In
him they saw their
own Tsvangirai, also the victim of democratic subversion
by African
strongmen.
Having visited Zimbabwe last year at the
invitation of the premier, Odinga
did not hide his empathy for Tsvangirai.
Tsvangirai reciprocated by being
Odinga’s guest at Kenya’s Orange Democratic
Party Coalition convention.
The legacy factor
There is also a sense in
which Odinga’s win would have been viewed as a
confidence booster for
Zimbabwe’s MDC party; his loss would yield the exact
opposite. Meanwhile,
Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party can’t help but sympathize with
the son of the East
African country’s founding leader, Jomo Kenyatta.
Odinga has constantly
criticized Mugabe’s regime for stealing votes from his
ally. Conversely, an
Odinga loss would put-paid the debate that Mugabe stole
his way back into
power.
That said, Kenyatta does not seem to be cut from the same cloth as
Zanu-PF
politicians, with their nationalistic ideology. Granted, Kenyatta
carries
his late father’s anti-colonial legacy, though he projects himself
as a
modern, dynamic leader who does not share in any thinking with Zanu-PF.
Nevermind. What we can learn from the Kenyan elections is that if an
opposition political party enters into a coalition government and does not
perform well, the voters will punish the opposition.
Kenya and
Zimbabwe are thousands of miles apart. But they are certainly not
so distant
in terms of their political directions. For Kenya, it now seems
to be Uhuru.
But Zimbabwe, it is not yet uhuru – that is, what Kenyatta’s
first name
means in Swahili: ‘free’.
http://www.cathybuckle.com
March 8, 2013, 1:56 pm
At his 89th
birthday celebrations, Robert Mugabe accused the MDC of lying
about the
level of violence and the number of deaths in the country. The MDC
were
lying, the president alleged, because they want to give a false
impression
of the situation in Zimbabwe to gain the rest of the world’s
sympathy. So
who are we to believe, Robert Mugabe or the MDC? Mugabe and
Zanu PF tell us
that there is only sporadic violence in the country and it
is not caused by
their followers; the MDC on the other hand says that
violence is increasing
in the run-up to the referendum and the elections
later this year. The death
of Christopher Maisiri is a case in point. The
MDC have blamed the fire in
the twelve year old’s bedroom on a fire bomb
hurled into the room from the
outside. The boy’s parents have even named the
suspects who, incidentally,
have fled the area. The police, on the other
hand say there was no foul
play. The fire was caused, they claim, by an
overturned paraffin lamp and a
highly flammable bag of AN fertiliser in the
boy’s bedroom. ‘Well, that’s
possible,’ is one’s first reaction, ‘that could
be true. Such incidents are
not uncommon in the rural areas.’ Then we heard
Christopher’s mother’s
version of the incident and her account has the ring
of factual truth. The
fire did not start inside the room but from outside,
from the top of the
thatched roof where the flames were first seen.
Christopher’s mother gave
her first-hand account of the incident to the
police but, she says, they
totally ignored her evidence. For ordinary
people, the credibility of her
account is beyond question; she was there,
she saw the tragedy with her own
eyes. What possible reason would she have
to lie about the death of her own
son? Are we supposed to believe that she
would lie about such a deeply
traumatic event as the death of her own child
for political
advantage?
Judging the truth, or half-truth, from the lie is something
Zimbabweans have
to do on a daily basis. With a state controlled media which
consistently
misleads the public with its one-sided version of events, the
public has to
decide on the factual truth of every story. The problem is
further
compounded when the police themselves are politically biased. As the
pre-election climate heats up, the police are busy making sure that the
opposition are hindered as much as possible from running their campaign.
While Zanu PF youths are allowed to move freely from door to door in a
recruitment drive, this week we have seen the police arresting MDC people
for “perpetrating acts of violence” at a road block and police in full riot
gear breaking up a Tsvangirai rally claiming that the MDC had not obtained
police permission. ‘Not so’ claimed the MDC, ‘we did apply.’ It was “a
communications breakdown” the police responded, the request for permission
had apparently been submitted to the wrong official!
The seizure of
radios continued this week with another independent station
closed down and
180 radios seized. It would be interesting to know where all
these
confiscated radios are being stored; with 80% unemployment, the
temptation
to help oneself might prove too much for some desperate
unemployed person.
Even employed people can barely survive; this week the
wives of NRZ workers
staged a demonstration in Bulawayo, their husbands have
not been paid in
full for 8 months. Perhaps Mr Mugabe thinks that is just
another MDC
distortion of the truth – or that is what he would have us
believe.
Zimbabweans must judge the truth for themselves.
Yours in the
(continuing) struggle, Pauline Henson
http://www.cathybuckle.com
March 9, 2013, 8:57 am
Dear Family and
Friends,
Late season electrical storms have been lighting up our night
skies for the
past couple of weeks. Sometimes dazzling forks of brilliant
white light
trace through the darkness and at other times big white sheets
of lightning
turn night into day for a few seconds at a time. It was during
one of these
illuminating light shows that I saw the visitor outside my
window one night
this week. A large owl was standing as still as statue on
the lawn. While
the lightning flicked, flashed and streaked through the sky,
the owl didn’t
flinch, its eyes focussed on something it could see but I
couldn’t. Ten
minutes passed but the big bird didn’t move and as the sky
went dark the owl
merged into the blackness. I knew it was still there,
watching, waiting,
ready to pounce and it felt very much like the state of
ominous suspension
the country is in right now.
Sales are down,
business is slow, money is hardly circulating and with a
sense of dread we
prepare to head towards polling stations. It’s not the
first ballot that
scares us so much because both of the main political
parties are calling for
us to vote YES for the proposed constitution that is
being put to a
national referendum. Most of the people I’ve met in the
last two weeks
haven’t even seen the draft constitution, let alone had the
time to page
through it or had a chance to think about it, so it remains to
be seen how
many people will go and vote.
The really big question though is not so
much whether we say yes or no to
what is undoubtedly a politically
‘negotiated’ document but if our leaders
will abide by it. How can we
forget when we voted NO to the last proposed
constitution in 2000 and a few
days later the President simply amended the
old document. The MDC
Constitutional Affairs Minister came closest to the
reality of the four year
marathon to produce the latest charter a couple of
weeks ago when he said:
“A new constitution will not guarantee us a free and
fair election. What is
going to guarantee us a free and fair election is a
culture of
constitutionalism.”
The elections that are really worrying us and have us
on the edge of our
chairs are the combined parliamentary and presidential
elections that will
happen sometime within the next three or four months.
When police in riot
gear broke up a constitutional campaign meeting in
Highfield being held by
the Prime Minister this week, the PM said: “It’s
clear that the leopard has
not changed colours.” His words followed those of
the MDC Co- Home Affairs
Minister Theresa Makone a couple of weeks ago who
warned that we were being
“catapulted into a rushed election.” Following
recent events, Minister
Makone said : “It is quite clear that the kind of
violence we are going to
see this time is probably going to be at an
unprecedented scale.”
And her most chilling words, the ones that leave us
paralyzed, like the
helpless victim waiting for the owl on the lawn at
night: “this election is
going to be bloodier than 2008. The makings of a
horror election are there
in front of us for all to see. “ Until next time,
thanks for reading, love
cathy
Executive Summary"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~ President Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address, 4 March 1801
On the 6th February 2013, four years after the formation of a Government of National Unity, a draft Constitution was laid before Parliament and unanimously approved by the House of Assembly and the Senate. The parties that negotiated the Global Political Agreement (GPA) are urging the people to vote ‘Yes’ in a referendum on this proposed Constitution before it becomes our fundamental law. In this paper I explore those sections relevant to land policy, especially sections 296 and 297 on establishing a Land Commission and its role to conduct land audits; and section 72 governing rights to agricultural land. Section 72 is controversial because it incorporates key provisions from the previous constitution that were struck down by the SADC Tribunal on the basis that they were discriminatory and inimical to international law and the rule of law. The paper concludes that compromises made between political parties have produced a patchy charter with a mix of good and bad clauses. But the draft Constitution also includes provisions that make it unworthy of a democratic society based on justice, equality and the rule of law.
1. IntroductionThe draft Constitution brings together what had been two related but disparate land policy issues: the establishment of a Land Commission, and the carrying out of a land audit. Section 297(1)(b) now makes the Zimbabwe Land Commission responsible for conducting audits of agricultural land. When originally conceived, both the Land Commission and the land audit were to be independent, impartial and technically sound in order to bring sanity to an otherwise deeply politicised and polarised issue. The paper therefore explores the background and need for a Land Commission and a land audit.
More controversially, the draft Constitution separates general Property Rights [71] from Rights to Agricultural Land [72]. Its provisions governing Property Rights hold that no person may be compulsorily deprived of their property unless i) they are given reasonable notice, ii) they are paid fair and adequate compensation, and iii) the acquiring authority applies to the courts to confirm the acquisition if it is contested [71(3)(c)]. If the court does not confirm the acquisition, a person may apply to the court for the prompt return of their property. It also allows a person to challenge in a court of law the legality of the acquisition, the amount of compensation, as well as ask for prompt compensation. Yet none of these rights are protected regarding Rights to Agricultural Land.
2. The Zimbabwe Land CommissionThe Genesis of an Idea
The idea of a Land Board or Commission has had different incarnations and its functions varied from a purely advisory role to a fully-fledged parastatal organisation, replete with executive powers over all agricultural land matters. The Rukuni Commission first mooted the idea of a decentralised system of Land Boards to avoid repeated failures of narrowly defined, top-down centrally planned programmes.1An independent National Land Board was to advise government on land policy, monitor programme implementation, and develop farmer selection and arbitration procedures. Provincial and district land boards would have similar responsibilities at their respective levels of governance. By 1999, the Framework Plan for the Inception Phase of the Land Reform Programme called for the “establishment of an extra-ministerial and autonomous National Land Board responsible for all land management”.2This was followed by the Presidential Land Review Committee’s suggestion for a National Land Board to “allow major players on land matters to come together and resolve the administrative issues on land and advise Government.”3
A Land Commission
It was the newly formed Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) that took up the idea of a Land Commission in August 1999.4 The Land Commission would manage land redistribution and policies, while village and district land boards would operate as its decentralised agents. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) also proposed a Land Commission to counter the highly centralised, complex and opaque decision-making process that had come to characterise Zimbabwe’s land policy after 2000.5 By January 2004, the MDC’s RESTART Programme advocated the establishment of an impartial, independent and professional Land Commission, vested with the powers to formulate, plan and coordinate the resettlement programme.6
The MDC, buoyant with optimism, even drew up an accompanying Land Commission Bill (2004). The Commission’s powers and functions included the planning and implementation of national land policies and resettlement programmes. Its proposals for the selection of members of the Commission and the Bill’s oversight procedures made it the fullest expression of the party’s determination to remove the political sting from implementing land policy. Members of the Commission were to be appointed by the President, but only on the advice of Parliament’s portfolio committee on lands, which would select suitable candidates. Not only would the Land Commission be required to report regularly to Parliament, but only Parliament would have the power to provide the Land Commission with general policy directives.
Land Fund and Dispute Resolution Courts
Proposals for a revolving fund for the resettlement programme were first found in the Inception Phase Framework Plan of 1999.7 Government and donor contributions would be pooled to support either land acquisition or infrastructure for resettlement. The Framework Plan also included village and district land dispute resolution courts. UNDP adopted similar ideas, but suggested that an Independent Trust Fund be managed by UNDP to reduce fiduciary risk.8 Its board of directors would include the Government of Zimbabwe, donors, and international finance institutions, such as the World Bank.9 However, it was the Land Commission Bill of 2004 which proposed that a Rural Development Fund be specifically vested in a Land Commission. Its primary purpose was to acquire land for resettlement. The Bill also stressed that the Fund’s accounts would be thoroughly audited. Another adjunct to the Land Commission Bill was the establishment of a land court to hear disputes and appeals. More recently, the central feature of the Commercial Farmers Union’s Proposal is the Land Bank itself.10 It not only funds a Land Commission, but provides finance for farming capital, infrastructure for resettlement schemes, mentoring schemes; as well as research, extension and marketing services.
The Draft Constitution
Having gone unmentioned in the GPA, the idea of a Land Commission re-emerges in the Draft Constitution, but only as a shadow of its original conception. Gone are the provisions that the Parliament would be responsible for appointing members to the Land Commission. Instead it is the President – once again – who makes the appointments [296(1)]. Nor does Parliament provide policy guidelines. Instead, it is the Minister of Lands who gives policy directives to the Land Commission [297(3)]. Any regulations, too, are subject to ministerial approval. Sub-sections 5 and 6(a) try to give the Commission a veneer of independence and impartiality. In reality, though, these provisions are included only to give the impression of an ‘independent and impartial’ Commission.
The most important retreat, however, has been to make the Land Commission an advisory body to Government rather than an independent parastatal organisation with executive authority. The Commission may make recommendations on a host of issues – including land tenure and compensation – but it lacks any real powers of implementation or teeth for enforcement. Decisions governing land remain firmly in the hands of the President and his appointed minister. The Commission may investigate land disputes, but gone are the land courts with judicial powers to resolve disputes and enforce decisions. Nor is there any mention of a Land Fund to finance the Commission and its programmes. The Commission will now depend on allocations from the near empty coffers of the national exchequer. Gone, too, is the establishment of decentralised land boards or committees as proposed by the Rukuni Commission and by the Land Commission Bill. The draft Constitution therefore places the Land Commission and land policy firmly back into a toxic political arena.The First Lost Opportunity (1950-1980)
3. Land AuditScope
Following election violence and the seizure of commercial farms between 2000 and 2002, the United States and the European Union (EU) imposed certain conditions and measures on Zimbabwe. The United States passed a law restricting Zimbabwe’s access to international loans or debt relief until its President certifies, inter alia, that Zimbabwe has demonstrated its commitment to an equitable, legal and transparent land reform programme.11For its part, the EU imposed targeted measures in February 2002 against those primarily responsible for violence, intimidation and farm invasions.12 It also set benchmarks to assess Zimbabwe’s progress towards demonstrating its commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. One key benchmark for normalising relations was for Zimbabwe to carry out an independent audit of the land reform programme in collaboration with UNDP. The audit was to assess the fairness of the land reform process and recommend ways “to resolve all outstanding issues, including the revival of production.”13
Unfortunately, an obdurate Zimbabwe Government was in no mood for compromise. Amid calls to end the chaotic seizure of land, the government undertook its own audit. The first audit by Flora Buka, the Minister of State for the Land Reform Programme, was unusually forthright.14 It provided details of how political elites squabbled and grabbed multiple farms while displacing newly settled A1 farmers. More typically, when the report was leaked, the government moved quickly to suppress it. Instead, a Presidential Land Review Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Utete was appointed in March 2003. Despite some merits of the report, it did little to meet the conditions and criteria set by the EU and the United States.
The MDC, then in opposition, called for a physical audit of farms that included a legal component to assess the constitutionality and legality of the process.15 A subsequent UNDP report in 2008 recommended a land audit with three components.16 First, it suggested a farm acquisition and settlement survey to document the process of farm occupations and the patterns of resettlement. Its purpose would be to determine how, when and which farmers lost their land, and how, when, and by whom the land was taken over. In the process, multiple farm owners would be identified. Second, it suggested a legal study to bring an authoritative judicial opinion to bear on the legality of possession and settlement. And, third, it suggested a physical and production survey to assess compensation payable and the cost of rehabilitation to bring farms back to their full production potential. The report stressed that the audit be conducted in a rigorous manner by independent researchers to ensure that its impartiality and creditability were never in doubt.
The Global Political Agreement
In terms of Article 5.9(a) of the GPA, the main political parties agreed to “conduct a comprehensive, transparent and non-partisan land audit ... for the purpose of establishing accountability and eliminating multiple farm ownerships.” Unfortunately, by stating a purpose of the audit, it has come to be seen solely as eliminating multiple farm ownership, thereby significantly narrowing its scope. Its mandate now seems a far cry from its original purpose of establishing an equitable, legal and transparent land reform programme to resolve all outstanding land issues. Even so, ZANU(PF) has used its toolkit of excuses to renege on its commitment to carry out the land audit and other GPA reforms.
More than a year after signing the GPA in October 2009, little progress had been made. The Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement claimed that Treasury had not released funds required for the audit.17 Sensing an opportunity, the EU offered to fund a ‘meaningful’ land audit that would help resolve the land issue.18 But the offer was rebuffed. The Minister said that Zimbabwe would not accept any funding related to land from foreign groups and countries that wanted to push ‘dubious agendas’.19 Further obstacles to implementation were created at the ZANU(PF) Congress, held in December 2009. It resolved not to support the land audit and other GPA reforms until the MDC had prevailed upon its ‘Western allies’ to lift travel bans and financial restrictions applied to its leaders.20
Amid growing frustration at the stalled GPA process, SADC leaders urged the parties to develop an implementation mechanism and roadmap to elections.21 The result was a 24 point ‘implementation matrix’ endorsed by the SADC Summit held in Windhoek in August 2010.22 In it, the parties agreed to “Appoint an inclusive and balanced Land Audit Commission” within one month. It was not just to be the responsibility of the Minister of Lands and Resettlement, but the Cabinet and the Principals as well. While MDC and SADC leaders, including the South African President, appealed in Western capitals for ‘sanctions’ to be lifted, ZANU(PF) stubbornly refused to address any of the outstanding GPA issues, including the land audit.
ZANU(PF) not only reneged on the implementation of the GPA; it tried to fudge the meaning of an ‘independent’ audit. The Minister for Lands claimed that, “We are also seeking to establish an independent land committee – an inter-ministerial [body] to be made up of permanent secretaries and other senior government officials. The committee will also be replicated at provincial and district levels."23 As the CFU President was quick to point out: “As an interested party [the government] cannot be involved in auditing themselves.” 24
Draft Constitution
The draft Constitution vests the responsibility for land audits in the Land Commission. The question is: would this mean an independent audit? Section 297(6) tries to give the impression of independence and impartiality; but the substantive part of the section tells us otherwise. First, the current President, who appoints members of the Land Commission, is also the President and First Secretary of ZANU(PF). He has not only been the main driver of the contested and controversial land reform programme, but is believed to own many farms himself.25 Furthermore, he appoints the Minister who gives policy directives to the Land Commission and has a veto over any regulations. An independent Commission and land audit? Hardly.
4. Rights in Agricultural LandA wrongful ‘right’
Chapter 16 of the draft Constitution deals with agricultural land. In essence it maintains all the discriminatory provisions governing farmland found in the current Constitution. Section 289 laudably gives every Zimbabwe citizen the right to agricultural land regardless of his or her race or colour – subject to Section 72 – which then extinguishes other core rights. First, Section 72 removes the right to be given reasonable notice. In fact, no notice need be given at all. Land can be acquired and vested in the State with full title by the government doing nothing more than publishing a notice in the Gazette. Second, compensation is not payable for the land, only improvements [ss.(3)(a)], despite the land having been bought by most farmers after independence. The legal position under international law, as the SADC and ICSID Tribunals made clear, is that the State has a responsibility to pay fair compensation based on the genuine value of the property, including land, if owners have clear legal title to it. Section 72(3)(a) therefore contradicts section 12(1)(b) of the draft Constitution which requires Zimbabwe to respect international law.
Third, the draft Constitution disallows owners to apply to the court for the determination of any question relating to compensation for land and “no court may entertain any such application” [ss.(3)(b)]. As the learned judges stated in the SADC Tribunal: “the rule of law embraces at least two fundamental rights, namely, the right of access to the courts and the right to a fair hearing before an individual is deprived of a right, interest or legitimate expectation.”26 Section 72(3)(b) therefore contradicts a founding value and principle – Section 3(1)(b) – of the draft Constitution, which states that Zimbabwe is founded on respect for the rule of law. The draft Constitution is also at variance with section 69(3) which states that “Every person has the right of access to the courts ... for the resolution of any dispute” [emphasis added]; and Section 56(1), which holds that everyone has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
Justifiable discrimination?
Section 72(3)(c) is particularly curious, especially for a Constitution. Why does it specifically state that the acquisition of agricultural land may not be challenged on the grounds that it was discriminatory? The answer lies in the ruling of the SADC Tribunal. The Tribunal held that Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Amendment 17, now fully incorporated in Section 72 of the draft Constitution, is in breach of article 6(2) of the SADC Treaty, because the acquisition of agricultural land discriminated against farm owners on the grounds of race.27
Section 72 tries to circumvent this SADC ruling by justifying discrimination. First sub-section (7) is inserted justifying discrimination on the grounds that the people of Zimbabwe were unjustifiably disposed of their land without compensation and, hence, must reassert their rightful ownership over it. Section 56(5) then gives affect to this justification. It grants every person the right not to be treated in a discriminatory manner on the grounds of race or colour, unless it is ‘fair, reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society’.
The problem with the justification for discrimination [72(7)] is that it has already failed the test of being ‘fair, reasonable and justifiable’ in an international court. When the Zimbabwe Government put the same argument to the SADC Tribunal, it was rejected. Instead the Tribunal found that Amendment 17 constituted indirect discrimination or substantive inequality because it had an unjustifiable and disproportionate impact upon a group of individuals distinguished by race. Furthermore, the criteria for differentiation were “not reasonable and objective but arbitrary and based primarily on considerations of race.” It cannot therefore be justifiable in a democratic society.
Unworthy of a democratic society
Shamefully, none of the political parties involved in the constitution-making process made the slightest attempt to defend the SADC Treaty, its Tribunal, or its Tribunal’s rulings. But at least one Parliamentarian voiced his opinion on Section 72. He said that certain provisions regarding rights in agricultural land are so racially discriminatory that they “should never be in any modern democratic constitution.”28
5. The OutlookNot good...
Given that the draft Constitution will almost certainly be accepted in a referendum, the central question is whether it can bring about a just, legal and transparent land policy. The prospects, unfortunately, look decidedly bleak. Chapter 16 entrenches the outcome of land invasions and the seizures of farms and property. The draft Constitution also retains provisions under section 72 that are inimical to international law, human rights and the rule of law. Zimbabwe’s Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs – who remains on the EU’s list of those undermining these very rights and principles – was upbeat. “This is a beautiful document”, he gushed, referring to the draft Constitution:
“We have managed to protect those issues that are dear to us. The land issue is a foregone conclusion. We agreed that it is irreversible. The issues which were in contention are now history … We have made sure that our revolution has been consolidated.”29
The mystery is why the MDC allowed Section 72 and Chapter 16 to become foundational law. A senior policy-maker helpfully explained that the MDC’s aim was to reform the electoral system to achieve its main goal – free and fair elections.30 All else, including the land issue, were secondary. The MDC had to make compromises. If it conceded to ZANU(PF) on the land issue, he said, “so what?” Anyway, he added, land is not a major issue for the great majority. The issue of land and land policy was something the MDC could fix once in power.
A winning strategy?
Those not privy to the machinations of party politics have been left pondering whether sacrificing fundamental principles to win power was necessary or wise. The MDC have, after all, made little progress in reforming the electoral process on which free and fair elections – and victory at the polls – depend. Zimbabwe’s Finance Minister and MDC’s Secretary-General recently said that his party would continue pressing for major GPA reforms to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. But such forlorn hopes were quickly dashed by the Justice Minister, who bluntly dismissed any idea of ZANU(PF) making further concessions.31
While ZANU(PF) doggedly refuse to contemplate GPA reforms for free and fair elections, the MDC dutifully calls for the removal of ‘illegal sanctions’ against its erstwhile persecutors. This strategy is dumbfounding. First, it makes the MDC look responsible for the ‘sanctions’ and their removal. Second, it gives credence to a contrived conspiracy theory of collusion between the MDC with ‘Western allies’ bent on ‘regime change’. But, most seriously, it has whittled away the international community’s attempt to put pressure on those responsible for gross human rights violations and it has compromised efforts to bring about a just, legal and transparent land reform process.
International response
In February 2012, under pressure from SADC and Zimbabwe, the EU removed 51 individuals and 20 companies from its list of those accused of aiding and abetting human rights abuses.32 Again, this year, a further 21 names were removed from the EU list.33 Curiously, those removed included a former Deputy Minister who was responsible for invading the Save Conservancy, which is protected by a bilateral investment treaty with an EU member county. It included a war veteran accused, but never charged, of brutally beating members of a family because they dared lodge an appeal with the SADC Tribunal.34 And it included the Minister of Lands who refused EU assistance to carry out a meaningful land audit (still not done) in terms of the GPA. The EU has promised to remove most of the remaining restrictive measures following free and fair elections. But where does this leave the land reform process?
The enforcement of bilateral investment treaties, an independent land audit, and a resolution of all outstanding land issues were supposedly benchmarks for lifting restrictive measures.35 None of these have been achieved. If most restrictive measures are lifted without key land reforms, does the EU risk legitimising and rewarding those responsible for gross human rights violations and who plundered and nationalised the commercial farms without paying compensation? Does it risk losing its leverage over provisions in the draft Constitution – born of compromise and an elite pact – which undermine human rights and the rule of law? In short, how will the EU and other members of the international community continue to support the people of Zimbabwe to seek just solutions and closure to the land issue?
The first measure, in my view, is to insist that international development assistance be conditional upon Zimbabwe abiding by the decisions of international tribunals based on international law, meeting international standards of land acquisition and compensation, and carrying out a land audit. The land audit should encompass an assessment of:
The remit of the land audit should also be to make recommendations on how to resolve all outstanding land policy issues, reduce poverty, and put agriculture back on a sustainable growth trajectory.
The second measure is to support the rule of law, whenever possible, by affording the protection of the law to citizens, and providing them with access to independent, impartial and competent courts of law. They should support judicial reform to make courts accessible both to settle land disputes and hold those responsible for violence and crimes to account. The international community should consider supporting the SADC Treaty and the reestablishment of the SADC Tribunal to protect human rights, democracy, and rule of law (Article 4.c) and prevent discrimination against any person on the grounds of race (Article 6.2).
Those countries with bilateral investment promotion and protection treaties with Zimbabwe should also protect their own citizens. Bilateral investment treaties are signed between countries, but the consequences of a breach fall on an aggrieved country’s citizens. Over a hundred farms protected by such treaties have been seized since 2000, but no foreign citizen has yet been paid compensation. Is it not the duty of a country, whose citizens have been prejudiced by a breach of a bilateral treaty, to hold the culpable party to account? Countries whose citizens’ farms were seized in contravention of Zimbabwe’s treaty obligations should jointly institute class action proceedings at the International Centre for Settlement of International Disputes.
Can do better
The sine quo non of any democratic constitution is to enshrine fundamental rights that protect all persons. These constitutional rights are essential to safeguard minorities against the tyranny of the majority. In any true democracy, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority may be from the majority society. There cannot be room to argue, for example, that the black majority do not care about a white minority being discriminated against and stripped of their property rights in agricultural land. By that measure alone, the draft Constitution fails. It is not worthy of Zimbabwe or Zimbabweans.
1 Zimbabwe (1994) Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Land Tenure Systems, under the chairmanship of Prof. M. Rukuni. Government Printers: Harare. (p.128)
2 Zimbabwe (1999) Inception Phase Framework Plan: 1999 to 2000. Inter-Ministerial Committee on Resettlement and Rural Development / NEC Forum Land Reform Task Force: Harare (p.24)
3 Zimbabwe (2003) Report of the Presidential Land Review Committee. Vol.1 (Main Report) Under the chairmanship of Dr. Charles Utete: Harare (p.157)
4 Movement for Democratic Change (1999) Manifesto: Harare (p.22)
5 UNDP (2002) Zimbabwe: Land Reform and Resettlement: Assessment and Suggested Framework for the Future. Interim Mission Report: New York.
6 MDC (2004) RESTART: Our Path to Social Justice, Harare (p.16)
7 Zimbabwe (1999) ibid. (p.36)
8 UNDP (2002) ibid, (p.54)
9 Letter from UNDP Administrator dated 15 December 2000 to the President of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe, 2003: Appendix D).
10 Commercial Farmers Union (2013) The Way Forward – Agricultural and Economic Recovery in Zimbabwe – A Proposal <www.cfuzim.org>
11 Section 4(c) as read with 4(d)(3) of the United States’ Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.
12 Suspension of EU-Zimbabwe development cooperation pursuant to Articles 9 and 96 of the ACP-EC (Cotonou) Partnership Agreement, to which Zimbabwe is a party
13 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2006) Zimbabwe’s Failure to Meet the Benchmarks in the Cotonou Agreement (p.5).< www.hrforumzim.org>
14 Addendum to the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme National Audit Interim Report
15 MDC (2004), ibid., (p.17)
16 UNDP (2008) ibid., (p.168)
17 ZimOnline, ‘Lack of funds stalls Zim land audit’, 9 September 2009
18 The Zimbabwean, ‘EC offers to fund probe into farm ownership’, 18 October 2009
19 The Herald, 'No to Dubious Funding', 20 October 2009
20 Resolution D(3) of the Zimbabwe African National Union—Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party held at its 5th Ordinary National People’s Congress at the Harare International Conference Centre in Harare (9th -13th December 2009).
21 Communiqué of Extraordinary Session of the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) held in Luanda, Angola, on 1st June 2012.
22 Bill Watch, ‘Implementation Matrix for 24 Agreed Inclusive Government Issues’, No.33, 30 August 2010
23 IRIN (UN), ‘Who actually owns the farm?’ 24 September 2009
24 The Zimbabwean, 18 October 2009.
25 ZimOnline, “Zimbabwe’s new land barons“, 30 November 2010 <www.zimonline.co.za/>
26 Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd. and Others vs The Republic of Zimbabwe, SADC (T) Case No. 2/2007
27 Ibid.
28 David Coltart replies to Ben Freeth, Sokwanele, 31 July 2012,
29 The Zimbabwe Mail, ‘Diaspora can still register to vote – Chinamasa’, 11 February 2013
30 Eddie Cross, ‘Diamonds, the CFU, the MDC, and protecting the people’, Email message, 18 February, 2013
31 The Independent, ‘MDCs can forget about reforms: Chinamasa’, 1 February 2013
32New Zimbabwe, ‘Sanctions lifted on Reutenbach, Bredenkamp’, 17 February 2012
33 SW Radio Africa, ‘EU criticised after lifting Zim targeted ‘sanctions’ against 21’, 18 February 2013
34 SW Radio Africa, ‘Violent Chegutu ‘war vet’ removed from sanctions list’, 19 February 2013
35 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (2006) Zimbabwe’s Failure to Meet the Benchmarks in the Cotonou Agreement (p.5).< www.hrforumzim.org>