http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Lance Guma
27
January 2010
An attempt by the state to use the testimony of an arms
dealer, wrongfully
imprisoned over 3 years ago, is spectacularly backfiring
in the High Court.
On Wednesday Peter Hitschmann told the court that MDC
Treasurer-General Roy
Bennett was not involved in any terrorism plot against
Robert Mugabe's
regime. Only a few days ago a judge ruled that the
confession from
Hitschmann in 2006 was obtained through torture by state
security agents.
Soon after his release in 2009 Hitschmann told SW Radio
Africa in an
interview, "I was kicked in the testicles a few times and then
they resorted
to using cigarettes on my buttocks. But more effectively they
arrested my
wife and my son." He was told that if he didn't confess, his
family would
join him at the army barracks where he was
detained.
This week Hitschmann was declared 'a hostile witness' meaning
the state can
cross examine him even though he was meant to be their star
witness. But he
shot more holes through the state case when he told the
judge that Bennett
had nothing to with the firearms he kept and that he did
not provide any
funding for any plot to topple the government. The state
insists Bennett
deposited funds into Hitschmann's Mozambican bank account
and produced two
printed e-mails printed as evidence.
The defence
however questioned the authenticity of the e-mails, saying they
could have
been written and printed from anywhere. The judge now has to rule
on whether
the e-mails are admissible as evidence in court.
Hitschmann, who is a
former policeman and licenced arms dealer, had
collected guns from displaced
white commercial farmers. He said during the
farm invasions he acted as a
conduit for firearms for the police. The
receipts he got when he handed the
weapons to the police mysteriously
disappeared when he was arrested.
According to testimony he provided to the
court, one of his clients included
the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, who bought
arms from him, allegedly for their
security needs.
Hitschmann became a convenient tool for the state to use in
its attempts to
harass and frustrate Bennett who, as a farmer, was forced
off his
Charleswood Estate in Manicaland. The State has been relentless in
its
harassment of Bennett and in 2004, when Bennett pushed Justice Minister
Patrick Chinamasa in Parliament after a heated argument, he was jailed for a
year with hard labour by a ZANU PF dominated parliament. It's thought
because of the incident the Justice Minister remains determined to make his
life a living hell.
In this latest case Bennett is charged with
committing terrorism, banditry
and sabotage. The state case is that he
wanted to assassinate key government
figures and also blow up a major
communication link in Bromley. But
originally Pachedu, as he is
affectionately known in MDC circles, did not
hang around to be tried by a
compromised judiciary. He fled to South Africa
where he was to spend some
time in exile. Hitschmann however remained behind
and was tried and
convicted in a farcical process that saw him spend 3 years
and 4 months in
prison.
When the coalition government was eventually formed Bennett returned
to
Zimbabwe, only for the supposed new partners in the government, ZANU PF,
to
turn on him and arrest him a few days before he was to be sworn in as
Deputy
Agriculture Minister. The current co-Home Affairs Minister, Giles
Mutsekwa,
was another MDC official arrested in 2006 over the same alleged
plot but
later acquitted.
Bennett remains a key target, with some
analysts suggesting Mugabe is
desperate to block a displaced former white
farmer from becoming Deputy
Agriculture Minister.
On Wednesday, MDC
spokesman Nelson Chamisa said the party was firmly behind
Bennett and his
nomination as the Deputy Agriculture Minister. He said
events in the case so
far, including Hitschmanns' testimony, had vindicated
the party position
that Bennett is an innocent man.
January 27, 2010
.
By
Raymond Maingire
HARARE - High Court Judge, Chinembiri Bhunu, has
reserved judgement on the
application by the State to bring in email
evidence allegedly downloaded
from the laptop of Peter Michael Hitschmann, a
key witness and alleged
accomplice in the terrorism case of MDC treasurer
general, Roy Bennett.After
the court had ruled as inadmissible evidence
sourced through the so-called
confessions from the firearms dealer, the
prosecution, led by Attorney
General Johannes Tomana now seeks to have the
emails messages in question
used as evidence of communication between
Hitschmann and Bennett.
But the defence has challenged the production of
the emails which it says
could have been created by State security
agents.
The State says the emails contain details of the alleged
conspiracy between
Bennett and Hitschmann to commit acts of insurgency and
banditry.
"The State, My Lord, has been barred from relying on the
admissions which
were specified in this court, namely handwritten statements
by Peter Michael
Hitschmann, video evidence and the sworn statement by the
witness," said
Tomana.
"For that reason, it has abandoned the use of
those three admitted
statements.
"These (emails) are documents
separate from any admission that Peter Michael
Hitschmann placed. These are
documents which were found independently and
separately from the admission.
The objection by the defence counsel is
ill-founded and must be
dismissed."
Tomana said the State was producing the printed emails as
evidence to prove
that there is such evidence.
Tomana was adamant the
emails were "verifiable evidence" which must be
treated separately from the
other pieces of evidence which were ruled as
inadmissible by the
court.
"The emails contain relevant executive statements between the
witness and
the accused person and there is no rule of admissibility that
bars this
court from accepting them," said Tomana.
The State on
Wednesday called one Precious Nyasha Matare, a Central
Intelligence
Organization (CIO) operative, who works as a typist.
Matare told the
court she was summoned by the police in Mutare soon after
Hitschmann's
arrest on March 6, 2006, to assist them download the emails
from
Hitschmann's laptop. The laptop is among the items which are being held
by
the State as exhibits.
On her part, Matare said she found Hitschmann in
the office of the then
Officer Commanding Manicaland Province, Senior
Assistant Commissioner Ronald
Muderedzwa. She says she was asked to print
the emails following directions
from Hitschmann, who was in handcuffs and
leg irons.
Matare told the court she recognized the documents when they
were produced
before her through the email addresses which were
there.
"My Lord," said lead defence counsel, Beatrice Mtetwa, in her
submissions,"
the witness says that she is a typist. I do not believe that
gives her the
expertise to give evidence as to the origins of the
emails.
"From her emails," she added, "she clearly does not know the
addresses of
the various parties and she clearly cannot say the emails came
from whom
going where.
"The witness says she found the laptop on the
table but does not tell us how
the laptop came to be there.
"What was
done by persons from the President's office without following the
proper
procedure cannot be ruled admissible. My Lord, there can be nothing
independent about emails that were printed in the same unfree circumstances
as the other statements.
"This is particularly so, My Lord, as
Hitschmann has already said that such
emails were shown to him and does not
know their origins."
Mtetwa further contends the police should produce
expert evidence to prove
the emails were, indeed, an exchange between
Hitschmann and Bennett.
"There is nothing, My Lord, which indicates that
without a proper foundation
and we respectfully submit that they remain
prejudicial to the accused,"
Said Mtetwa. "We, therefore, remain resolute to
their production."
After both submissions were made, Justice Bhunu
reserved his judgement to
Wednesday February 3, 2010.
Should Bhunu
rule against the production of the emails, the State's case
will further
crumble. The emails have become the last piece of evidence at
the disposal
of the State as it seeks to link Bennett to the offence, which
carries a
death penalty in the case of a conviction.
After adjournment the previous
day, the matter opened Wednesday with
Hitschmann telling the court that he
was not the owner of all the weapons
produced as exhibits in
court.
Hitschmann further said the exhibits produced in Bennett's trial
were half
of those produced in his own trial. In that case Hitschmann was
acquitted on
that particular charge but convicted on a lesser
one.
The firearms dealer further said he did not know why the State
summary in
his case was different from that of Bennett, who is being charged
of the
same offence.
He also told the court that during his own trial
in 2006 there was no
mention of any email communication and bank deposits
allegedly made by
Bennett and that police did not seek his assistance in
accessing his
Mozambican account which he says is for his normal business
transactions in
the neighbouring country.
Hitschmann told the court
he was not present when the emails were being
downloaded from his laptop. He
said he did not know the origins of a CD or
of a desktop computer hard drive
that were allegedly recovered from him.
The court also heard that the
police did not highlight in their
investigation log that they had recovered
a laptop from him or that they had
downloaded any emails, something that is
a requirement during police
investigations.
Asked if this was normal,
Hitschmann, a former police officer responded, "It
is not only abnormal, it
is also dangerous, My Lord."
Hitschmann also told the court he did not
consider himself a hostile witness
as has already been declared. He said he
had tried to cooperate with the
state.
Hitschmann further said he was
only made aware he was being treated as
co-accused with Bennett in October
2009 when he was being sub-poenaed to
testify in the MDC official's
trial.
"It was never very clear whether I was the chief conspirator or
deputy chief
conspirator," he said. "What I know is that I was not a
conspirator."
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Alex Bell
27 January
2010
The shock decision this week by the High Court to dismiss a 2008
regional
ruling on the unlawful land 'reform' programme has sparked an angry
outcry,
with some observers calling it a 'travesty of
justice'.
Justice Barack Patel on Tuesday dismissed a finding by the
human rights
court of the Southern African Development Community (SADC),
which ruled that
Robert Mugabe's land grab campaign was unlawful. Justice
Patel said the
regional Tribunal's ruling would have no effect in Zimbabwe
because of the
political upheaval reversing 10 years of land seizures would
cause. He added
that enforcing the Tribunal's ruling would be against
Zimbabwe's domestic
laws and agrarian policies, noting that "the greater
public good must
prevail."
"Apart from the political enormity of any such
exercises, it would entail
the eviction, upheaval and eventual relocation of
many, if not most, of the
beneficiaries of the land reform programme,"
Justice Patel said.
The SADC Tribunal's ruling in 2008 came as a hard won
victory for a group of
79 commercial farmers who had all either lost land,
or been targeted for
land invasion, under the chaotic land grab campaign.
Led by Chegutu farmer,
Michael Campbell and his son-in-law Ben Freeth, the
farmers took their
battle before the Tribunal in an effort to secure their
property rights. The
Tribunal ordered that the government respect those
rights and compensate the
farmers who had already lost land. As a SADC
member state, Zimbabwe was
meant to adhere to the Tribunal
ruling.
But the farmers' battle did not end there and the often violent
drive to
remove the remaining commercial farmers from productive land in
Zimbabwe has
continued to intensify. Campbell is no longer on the property
which was
violently invaded last year by thugs working for top ZANU PF
official,
Nathan Shamuyarira. All the crops were stolen along with much of
the farming
equipment. Both the Campbell's and the Freeth's properties were
burnt down,
as well as the homes of their workers, who were also beaten and
brutalised.
At least 80 other properties have also, since the SADC ruling
in late 2008,
been forcibly taken over, in direct contravention of the
Tribunal's orders.
The government has previously dismissed the SADC ruling
as 'null and void',
and last year announced it was no longer abiding by the
Tribunal's orders.
The farmers meanwhile have not been able to have the
ruling enforced,
because the courts have on different occasions refused to
register it. SADC
treaty law states that enforcement of the Tribunal's
orders must take place
in accordance with local laws. In 2008, an urgent
application filed by
Campbell to have the Tribunal's ruling registered was
deemed 'not urgent' by
the High Court.
Tuesday's ruling by Justice
Patel was in connection with yet another attempt
to have the SADC Tribunal
ruling registered and enforced. But in a decision
that has shocked
supporters of the SADC ruling, Justice Patel dismissed it
as a threat to
'agrarian reform' in Zimbabwe.
Justice Patel concluded by saying that
there is an "overwhelmingly negative
impact of the Tribunal's decision on
domestic law and agrarian reform in
Zimbabwe, and not withstanding the
international obligations of the
Government I am deeply satisfied that the
registration and consequent
enforcement of that judgment would be
fundamentally contrary to the public
policy of this country."
A
rights group set up to actively campaign for the support and enforcement
of
the SADC land ruling, reacted with shock and anger on Wednesday. The
group,
SADC Tribunal Rights watch, is led by Ben Freeth. Speaking to SW
Radio
Africa on Wednesday he said that "it is a sad day for any country rife
with
human rights abuse, when a member of the judiciary entrenches the
future
possibility of human rights abuse." Freeth added that far from being
for the
'public good', the land reform program has 'indisputably' been a
programme
of violent, forced eviction that has resulted in the total
collapse of
agriculture in Zimbabwe.
More than 4,000 farming families and at least a
million of their workers and
their families have been driven off the land
and out of their homes since
Mugabe launched the land grab campaign a decade
ago. The country's leading
agricultural workers' union, GAPWUZ, has said
that at least 60% of workers
evicted in the land reform exercise were beaten
and brutalised by land
invaders. Farmers, who kept in contact with their
staff after eviction, have
reported that 40% have died since losing their
homes and jobs. Meanwhile
most of the beneficiaries of 'land reform' have
been top ZANU PF officials,
who now own multiple properties. These farms
have mostly been left to run
barren, leaving the 'breadbasket' of Africa
almost wholly dependent on food
aid.
"The judge, in his attempt to
legalise a programme of ethnic cleansing, has
joined the ranks of other
judges under dictatorial regimes such as in Nazi
Germany or Stalinist Soviet
Union and left Zimbabweans more exposed than
ever to further abuse by the
Zimbabwe Government," Freeth said.
Within hours of the ruling, rights
groups such as the SADC Tribunal Rights
Watch, as well as observers and
supporters of the SADC ruling, were
expressing their outrage, but
surprisingly there has been no comment yet
from SADC. They have remained
completely silent throughout the entire time
that the Zimbabwe government
has ignored its ruling. This latest High Court
ruling effectively dismisses
the legal powers of the SADC Tribunal that
Zimbabwe, as a signatory to the
SADC Treaty, is bound to respect. One would
also assume that other SADC
member states, like South Africa, would have
expressed some concern that the
region's statutes of human rights were being
publicly flouted by Zimbabwe.
But no country in the region has commented
yet.
There has also been
no criticism or response from the MDC, which recently
indicated that ongoing
land attacks could be added to their list of
outstanding issues of the
Global Political Agreement (GPA). The party last
week said it was
'concerned' by ongoing land invasions, but it has not
commented on this
latest development.
SADC
TRIBUNAL RIGHTS WATCH
SADC
Tribunal Judgment of 28 November 2008 in favour of 78 Zimbabwean farmers: Case
in the Zimbabwe High Court – 26 January 2010
In the case in the Zimbabwe High Court, Justice Patel delivered
judgment yesterday, 26 January. In his judgment he was “more than
satisfied” that the SADC Tribunal had been constituted properly and had
jurisdiction within the SADC states, including Zimbabwe, although he was “not
entirely persuaded” that the Tribunal could “entertain and adjudicate alleged
violations of human rights which might be committed by member states against
their own nationals.”
SADC Tribunal Rights Watch finds it hard to understand the reasoning
here where the broad principles of the SADC Treaty on which the Tribunal finds
its guiding principles as being “human rights, democracy and the rule of law,”
are very specific.
Justice Patel goes on to say that despite accepting the Tribunal's
rulings, the said individual rulings should be “subject to a consideration of
the facts of each individual case.” The Constitution of Zimbabwe is quoted
which says that “the Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and if any
other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, that other law shall, to the
extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Justice Patel says it is contrary to public policy in Zimbabwe to go
against the Constitution. SADC Tribunal Rights Watch believes that by saying
this, he is opening the door wide to allow the Bill of Rights to be trampled by
any dictatorship that may spring up to change constitutions in conformity with
dictatorial demands of the executive.
The judge goes on to state that the land reform program “is
quintessentially a matter of public policy in Zimbabwe, conceived well before
the country attained its sovereign independence.” He says that “the greater
public good must prevail.”
Justice Patel concludes by saying that there is an “overwhelmingly
negative impact of the Tribunal’s decision on domestic law and agrarian reform
in Zimbabwe, and not withstanding the international obligations of the
Government I am deeply satisfied that the registration and consequent
enforcement of that judgment would be fundamentally contrary to the public
policy of this country.”
He dismissed the matter with no order as to costs.
SADC Tribunal Rights Watch believes that it is a sad
day for any country rife with human rights abuse, when a member of the judiciary
entrenches the future possibility of human rights abuse.
By dismissing international treaties in favour of laws that fly in
the face of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Zimbabwe authorities have
brought about the direct suffering of over 2 million farmers and farm workers,
most of whom have been left homeless or jobless.
The people of Zimbabwe are now totally dependent on
international food aid. The land reform program has resulted in a net
de-settlement of people and has brought the vast majority of Zimbabweans into
poverty.
Far from being for the “public good,” which the
judge has evidently deceived himself into writing, the land reform program has
indisputably been a programme of violent, forced eviction without compensation
and has resulted in the total dereliction of the majority Zimbabwe’s commercial
agricultural properties.
The judge, in his attempt to legalise a programme of ethnic
cleansing, has joined the ranks of other judges under dictatorial regimes such
as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union and left Zimbabweans more exposed
than ever to further abuse by the Zimbabwe Government.
Ben Freeth
Spokesman for SADC Tribunal Rights Watch
Cell: +263 913 929 138
E-mail: freeth@bsatt.com
-----
PATEL,
J
Harare,
24 November, 2009 and 26th January 2010
Facts
of the Case
This
case was an application for the Registration of the SADC Tribunal Judgement in
the matter of Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and others versus the Republic of Zimbabwe
by 2 out of the 77 applicants in that case. This case found that the rights of
white farmers to approach a court for redress and not be discriminated against
on the basis of race in Zimbabwe were unreasonably denied by Constitutional
amendment number 17 which provides the entire legal basis for the Land Reform
Programme. (The SADC treaty, whilst holding that the decisions of the Tribunal
are final and binding, prescribes that enforcement and domestication of inter
alia, judgments of the Tribunal must take place in accordance with the local
laws of the relevant member states. Member states are obliged to ensure that
their local laws provide for the domestication of SADC Tribunal decisions.)
Zimbabwean common law allows for applications for the registration of
international judgments not covered by the Civil Matters (Mutual Assistance) Act
[Chapter 8:02].
Questions to be determined by the
Court
The
Court summarised the questions before it as
follows:
1. Whether
the SADC Tribunal was endowed with the Jurisdictional Competence to rule over
the case before it in the Campbell matter; and
2. Whether
the enforcement of the SADC Tribunal decision in that case would be contrary to
public policy in Zimbabwe.
Judgment
With
regard to the first question, the court held that the SADC Tribunal did have the
jurisdictional competence to adjudicate over the Campbell case and further
recognized the legitimacy of the SADC Tribunal.
With
regard to the second question the application for registration was dismissed.
The court held that this was contrary to public policy in
Zimbabwe.
Reason
for the court’s decision (ratio dacidendi)
Interestingly, the court cited the fact that Zimbabwe as well as
other SADC member states had fully participated in the Toika system and the
business of this newly constituted organ whose legal basis is the same as that
of the Tribunal (namely the Amendment to the SADC Treaty of
2001)
The
rationale behind dismissing the application for registration seems to be that
foreign judgments could not be recognized if they were contrary to “public
policy” and “prior judicial precedent” (referring specifically to a judgment by
the Supreme Court in the Campbell case). The court held that it was not good
public policy to undermine the authority of the Courts in
Zimbabwe.
Addressing the argument that the applicants had a reasonable
expectation that the Zimbabwean Government would abide by its international
obligations the court held that the beneficiaries of land reform had a
reasonable expectation that Government would effectively implement land reform
which outweighed the other conflicting expectation.
[1] Gramara (Pvt) Ltd. 27th Applicant in the landmark court case heard by the SADC Tribunal in Windhoek, Namibia
----------------------------
------------------------------
High Court Hearing for Registration of SADC Tribunal
Farms Judgment on 24 November 2009
SW Radio Africa
Almost exactly a year after the SADC Tribunal made its landmark
judgment in
the Campbell case on 28 November 2008, the High Court of Zimbabwe finally
set down a date for registering the
Judgment in Zimbabwe. Mike Campbell*
had
initially made an urgent application in December 2008 to have the
judgment
registered but it was not deemed by the High Court of Zimbabwe to
be urgent.
After that his farm was invaded and he had all his crops
stolen,
almost all his equipment stolen, and has had his house burnt down
with
almost all his personal belongings. His son and daughter- in-law’s
house
was also burnt down on the farm and some of his workers lost their
homes and
were severely brutalised. ZANU PF political heavy weight,
Nathan
Shamuyarira, has taken over. A visit to the farm today will show it in
a
state of virtual dereliction.
Richard Etheredge** then tried to get the judgment registered in an
urgent
application when Senator Edna Madzongwe, the Speaker of the House,
invaded
his property. The High Court of Zimbabwe again did not deem the application
to be
urgent. Mr. Etheredge has since had his entire orange crop of 6000
tons
stolen as well as his houses broken into. His tractors and farm
equipment was
also stolen and his houses broken into. Various people have
met violent
deaths on the farm since Senator Madzongwe took over and the
Etheredges were
forced to flee.
After that Gramara Pvt. Ltd.*** put in an
application to have the SADC
Tribunal Judgment registered on the normal court
roll. It was finally set
down for the 24 November 2008 and Advocates Jeremy
Gauntlett and Frank
Pelser came up from South Africa to argue the case.
Inexplicably, Zimbabwe
Justice Minister
Patrick Chinamasa refused to issue a certificate to allow
them to argue it. A
similar application had been approved for Advocate
Pretorius in a different
matter, and this had been put in the same day.
Advocate Gauntlett, a former
chair of the Bar Association in South Africa
and one of Africa’s leading
advocates, has fought many cases in Zimbabwe.
The last certificate he was granted for
Zimbabwe was on the 25 June 2009.
He
represented Campbell in the case from its outset in the Supreme Court
of
Zimbabwe, so to not be admitted was
unprecedented.
In the Chamber application asking the Judge to exercise his
inherent
jurisdiction to allow Advocates Gauntlett and Pelser to appear, it
was
argued that Gramara Pvt. Ltd. had a right to
choose its own council and that
there was a legitimate expectation that
Advocate Gauntlett should be allowed
to represent his client. This
application was turned down and Advocate
Lewis Urere had to step into the
breach with very little preparation.
Representing the Government of Zimbabwe, Gerald Mlotshwa tried to then put
an
intervener application in for an offer letter holder. He argued that
the
offer letter holder would be adversely affected if the Judgment
was
registered.
It was argued by Advocate Urere that the offer letter holder
in
question did not have a direct interest in the registration as
the
registration would not nullify the offer letter directly; and that the
offer
letter in question had never been formally accepted by the offer
letter
holder anyway.
Advocate Urere went on in the main case to state that the Minister
accepts
that Zimbabwe is bound by the SADC
Treaty and that the only substantial
argument that the Zimbabwe Government came up with for not registering
the
Judgment would be if the 2001 amendment to the SADC Treaty [which
finally
established the Tribunal as the Supreme Court of Appeal in SADC] was
deemed
to have not been done procedurally.
The Zimbabwe Government through State
Prosecutor Fatima Maxwell argued that
the SADC Tribunal had no jurisdiction
because it needed each individual
state to ratify the amendment to the
Treaty. She also stated that the
registration of the SADC Tribunal Judgment
would lead to a public outcry and
that it would undermine the Supreme Court
of Zimbabwe. .
Advocate Lewis Urere argued that all the Heads of State in the
SADC
community had signed the amendment to the Treaty that established
the
Tribunal except for the Angolan head of state. As it only needed
three
quarters of the SADC Summit to sign, the SADC Tribunal had been
properly
established according to what was laid down in the SADC Treaty
agreement for
amendments. He said that the definition of the Summit was
clearly laid out
as the heads of state, and it did not need individual states
to then ratify
the treaty amendment subsequently.
As a result the SADC Tribunal clearly had jurisdiction in the case
and that the Judgment should be registered under procedural and common law. He
said that the Government could not avoid International law which was there to
uphold rights and ensure that where municipal laws infringed on rights, they
could be struck down. He
gave the example of the genocide in Rwanda, which
could have been allowed by
municipal law, but which international law could
not clearly condone.
Justice Patel reserved judgement on the case.
SW Radio Africa
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Alex Bell
27
January 2010
The South African government is set to come under renewed
pressure to
release a potentially explosive report on post election violence
in
Zimbabwe, which has been kept hidden from public scrutiny for well over a
year,
The South African History Archive and the Southern African
Centre for the
Survivors of Torture is set to ask the Pretoria High Court to
force the
government to release the report. The two groups, with the support
of the
Southern African Litigation Centre, last week filed papers in court
asking
that the Presidency be 'compelled' to release the contents of the
report
which is believed to have been given to former president Thabo
Mbeki.
In May 2008 Mbeki commissioned four retired SA generals to visit
Zimbabwe
and report back on the violence which erupted after the March 2008
presidential elections. But that report was never released. The presidency,
under Jacob Zuma, has made claims that former President Thabo Mbeki never
received a written report, but only oral feedback from the retired
generals.
The Centre for Survivors of Torture, the Litigation Centre and
the official
opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, last year invoked
the 'Promotion
of Access to Information Act' to force the President's Office
to release the
report. This request was turned down, with the Presidency
claiming that no
such report existed. A subsequent internal appeal was also
denied. The
Presidency was again approached by the History Archive, which
this time
requested any of the supporting documents on the generals'
mission. This
request was also denied and the Presidency continued to insist
that no such
documents existed.
The court will now be asked to review
all these refusals and to force the
government to release documents relating
to the generals' report. No date
had yet been set for the
hearing.
The groups have insisted that the report paints a
'devastating' picture of
state-sponsored violence, which apparently shifted
Mbeki's perceptions on
the situation in Zimbabwe.
"The report is
believed to have been hard-hitting and instrumental in the
evolution of
subsequent negotiations leading to the September Global
Political
Agreement," they said in a combined statement last year.
This is not the
first time that the South African government has refused to
publicise
reports related to the crisis in Zimbabwe. In 2002, then President
Mbeki
appointed Judge Sisi Khampepe and current Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang
Moseneke to observe the Presidential election in Zimbabwe, but their report
has never been released. More recently, the government asked the
Constitutional Court not to publicly release a secret 60-page report
containing correspondence between the South African and Zimbabwean
governments.
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Violet Gonda
27 January
2010
South African President Jacob Zuma is coming under increasing
pressure to
help break the political deadlock in Zimbabwe. Despite claims by
the
partners in the power sharing government that progress was being made,
Finance Minister Tendai Biti told journalists in Washington DC on Tuesday
that the shaky coalition could collapse if fundamental outstanding issues
are not addressed.
The Finance Minister, who is also a negotiator for
the MDC-T in the
inter-party talks, reportedly called for the intervention
of Zuma as they
had failed to break the impasse. Zuma is the SADC appointed
mediator in
Zimbabwe.
However Biti is quoted by Voice of America
saying he was optimistic about
the future of the country, in spite of the
disputes, adding: "This equation
can only work if those fundamental
foundational cornerstones which brought
the Zimbabwean parties involuntarily
together are addressed. If there is a
fear that there is arrested
development on the things that gave rise to (the
government) such as
democratization, writing of a new constitution and
economic reforms, it will
collapse. This is the time for President Zuma to
show leadership and
intervene."
Meanwhile a UK based Zimbabwean pressure group, Zimbabwe
Vigil, said South
Africa holds the key to a better Zimbabwe and warned it
will embark on a
series of protests during Zuma's official visit to the UK
in March, if
Zimbabwe's neighbour failed to act.
"Zuma said the MDC
should park their issues about Gideon Gono (Central Bank
Governor) and
Johannes Tomana (Attorney General). That is saying park your
issues about
corruption and the rule of law and to us that seems an
extraordinary thing
to say. Why doesn't he ask Mugabe to park some of his
issues which are far
more important to get rid off?" asked Rose Benton, the
Vigil
Coordinator.
She added: "Zuma is coming here and we are watching to see
what pressure he
puts on this unity government to honour the terms of the
Global Political
Agreement. If he seems to be just supporting Mugabe then we
will come out
and protest."
Kate Hoey, an outspoken British Labour MP
and chairman of the All Party
Zimbabwe Group, echoed the same sentiments. In
an opinion piece titled 'It's
time to cry foul on Mugabe and show him the
red card' she wrote that South
Africa must now make it clear to Mugabe that
it will no longer accommodate
his refusal to implement the terms of the GPA
- an agreement he signed up
to.
"In the world of international
diplomacy, the regional superpower South
Africa has been given the job of
referee in Zimbabwe. What Zimbabweans can't
understand is why, in
footballing terms, Mugabe has played foul for so long
and never been shown a
yellow card, still less been sent off," said the
Labour MP.
"They
can't understand why Morgan Tsvangirai won the game and yet Mugabe
still
seems to be allowed to hang onto the trophy. My advice to
President Zuma is
to be bold before he comes to London in March. He must
tell Mugabe his game
is up and show him the red card."
(AFP) - 7 hours
ago
HARARE - Zimbabwe's Supreme Court has ordered the central bank to
safeguard
millions of dollars' worth of diamonds from a mine where the
military is
accused of killings and forced labour, a lawyer said
Wednesday.
The latest ruling stems from an ownership battle over the
mines in eastern
Zimbabwe, with a British firm and a government mineral
corporation locked in
a tug-of-war over the valuable deposits.
"The
chief justice said the diamonds should be kept by a neutral party
pending
the resolution of an ownership dispute which is before the court,"
said
Jonathan Samkange, lawyer for British firm African Consolidated
Resources
(ACR).
"The Supreme Court court ordered that the all the diamonds
extracted from
African Consolidated Resources by the the Zimbabwe Mining
Development
Corporation be returned," Samkange told AFP.
The company
is embroiled in a legal fight with the government-owned Zimbabwe
Mining
Development Corporation over the ownership of Chiadzwa diamond fields
in the
country's eastern Marange districts.
The government mining corporation
began mining diamonds in Chiadzwa while
ACR was contesting the cancellation
of its mining licence in 2007.
Samkange said the court order affects
129,000 carats of diamonds, including
gems mined by ACR and seized by police
as well as all the precious stones
mined since.
The minefields
attracted the attention of rights groups after reports of
beatings and
deaths of illegal gold panners by security forces.
Rights groups have
been lobbying for a ban on Marange diamonds, after a team
from the Kimberley
Process against "conflict diamonds" rebuked security
forces deployed at the
minefields for gross human rights violations.
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=27001
January 27, 2010
By Owen
Chikari
MASVINGO - At least 15 people have died of measles in Bikita
District,
bringing the national death toll to 55 since November last year,
health
officials here have said.
The 15, all believed to be members
of the Bikita District, religious sect,
died this month after they refused
to receive treatment, citing their
religious beliefs.
Members of the
Apostolic Faith sect countrywide have over the years refused
to have their
children immunized on religious grounds, resulting in a high
infant
mortality rate in the country.
Masvingo provincial medical director
Robert Mudyirandima confirmed the
deaths on Tuesday.
"We have
dispatched health personnel in the affected areas ", said
Mudyirandima."The
situation is under control since we have enough drugs to
deal with the
outbreak."
"Most of the 15 who died were children below the age of 10. We
are
encouraging people to make sure that their children are immunized to
avoid
unnecessary loss of human life".
It also emerged yesterday that
the police have since been deployed to the
affected areas to force people,
especially members of the Apostolic Faith
sect to have their children
immunized.
Sources within the police force yesterday said that they were
just assisting
the health officials to control the disease but were not
arresting anyone in
connection with the deaths.
"We just moved in to
assist health personnel after they requested assistance
from us," said a
senior police officer who requested anonymity.
"We have deployed officers
in the affected areas to ensure that they force
people to have their
children immunized but we are not going to arrest
anyone."
The
hardest hit area in Bikita is Murwira Communal Lands where at least ten
deaths were recorded in less than a month.
Measles has also killed
about 40 people in Mashonaland Central Province
since the beginning of
November last year.
The death toll has since risen to 55 amid strong
fears that more lives could
be lost as members of the Apostolic Faith sect
continue to resist moves to
have their children immunized.
Zimbabwe's
health delivery system has been facing serious challenges over
the last
decade, among them a shortage of drugs and qualified health
personnel.
The government of national unity formed in February 2009
is battling to
bring the health sector back into shape, following years of
neglect by
President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF government.
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Tichaona Sibanda
27 January
2010
There are revelations that the working conditions of Zimbabwe's
diplomats
rank among the worst in the world and this has rekindled debate
over the
inclusive government's commitment to financing foreign
missions.
Reports say that since the formation of the unity government in
February
last year, the disgruntled diplomats have not received their
salaries. SW
Radio Africa understands that staff at the diplomatic missions,
the symbol
of the country's sovereignty in the family of nations, survives
on
allowances.
To add to their woes, embassy staff in Rome, Italy,
Switzerland, Portugal
and Sweden has reportedly been given notice to vacate
residences, due to
rent and utility arrears. The Ambassador to Maputo,
Agrippa Mutambara, walks
to work after his official vehicle broke down last
year.
The battered and old vehicle used by the Ambassador in Nigeria has
become a
laughing stock in diplomatic circles there. European based Zimbabwe
diplomats with children have resorted to sending them to live with relatives
in the United Kingdom, where education is free up to secondary school
level.
'In the past government used to pay school fees for the
dependents, and
spouses used to get allowances, but those facilities were
cancelled at the
height of the economic down turn. Better pay is hardly the
crux of the
matter. The entire state of our diplomatic image is a shambles
as
underfunding paralyses the operations of missions,' the diplomatic source
said.
It's also alleged by a diplomatic source that the Foreign
Affairs Ministry
has been unable to recall ambassadors and other senior and
junior officers,
who completed their terms as far back as 200,8 citing lack
of relocation
funds.
There is also frustration among those stationed
at the Foreign Affairs head
office at Munhumutapa offices who have waited
for years to be posted to the
abroad.
'This leads to a situation
where a diplomat abroad is forced to remain at
station for eight to ten
years instead of one five year term,' our source
added.
While it is
true some career diplomats have not been recalled owing to cash
shortages,
others have been rooted at their posts as a result of Robert
Mugabe's
patronage system. Political appointees like Simon Khaya Moyo spent
almost a
decade in Pretoria as Ambassador and Boniface Chidyausiku has been
in New
York as Permanent Representative for ages because they defend Mugabe
and
ZANU PF's interests there. Zimbabweans have long complained that they
don't
get help from embassies abroad that seem to represent interests of
people
with links to ZANU PF.
Ideally, according to our source, diplomats are
supposed to serve a term at
any mission and in between periods they are
either rotated or recalled back
home to serve time at head offices before
being posted to another station.
As it is the diplomatic servce has been
stagnant for years, owing to lack of
funds.
There was disquiet among
the diplomats after the government spent $28
million in foreign travel when
foreign mission staff are nearly destitute.
Zimbabwe has nearly 38
ambassadors, high commissioners and heads of mission
worldwide. Each mission
has an average staff of eight officers. Eyebrows
were raised when Robert
Mugabe traveled with an entourage of over 60 people
for a United Nations
food summit in Rome, Italy, last year when the huge
cost of that trip could
have been used to pay some diplomats.
Late last year, the business
community asked government to reduce the number
of its embassies, consulates
and missions abroad, as a first step towards
containing expenditure in the
2010 national budget.
The Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce (ZNCC)
also proposed that
government reduce foreign trips and use alternative
methods to conduct
business with international partners. ZNCC drafted a
paper titled 'Voice of
Business' calling on the government to cut embassy
staff abroad.
'In order to fund state expenditure wholly from revenues
and also balance
recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure, that is, without
recourse to
borrowing, the government should work towards the reduction in
the number of
Zimbabwean embassies, consulates and missions abroad while
consolidating
representation in various regions,' ZNCC said in the document
presented to
Finance Minister Tendai Biti.
We could not contact Biti
for comment as he was in Washington, USA on
government business while
Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi is
in Ethiopia preparing for
the forthcoming AU summit.
Public Service Minister Professor Elphas
Mukonoweshuro told us that once a
civil servant is appointed as a diplomat,
they cease to fall under his
ministry.
'The Public Service Commission
is responsible for recruiting staff for the
Foreign Affairs Ministry but
once an official is posted abroad, they no
longer fall under civil service
conditions. Their salaries are transferred
from the Finance Ministry to
Foreign Affairs without us being involved, so
you will need to speak to Biti
or Mumbengegwi,' Mukonoweshuro said.
http://en.afrik.com
Wednesday 27 January 2010
A
diplomatic row could erupt between Zimbabwe and neighboring Botswana after
three armed officers from the Botswana Department of Wildlife and National
Parks (DWNP) were arrested for straying into Zimbabwe.
The three
armed scouts were nabbed last week in Kazungula close to Victoria
Falls
after they crossed into Zimbabwe by "mistake while tracking lions that
had
killed two cows in Lesoma village along the border".
By this morning,
they were still locked up at Victoria Falls police
stattion.
The
Botswana High Commissioner in Harare, Gladys Kokorwe said her office has
been notified of the arrest and that she is working 'flat out to secure
their release".
A defence lawyer to represent the scouts was being
sought this morning.
Zimbabwe officials say the three should appear
in court as "there is a
possibility that they could have been carrying
dangerous arms of war".
Bostwana President, Ian Khama, is a staunch
critic of his Zimbabwe
counterpart and has openly called for Mugabe to
resign.
Kazungula Police Station Commander, Assistant Superintendent
Chakalisa Nkoni
said that the three men were caught along
Kazungula/Lesoma.
Ass. Sup. Nkoni explained that the men aged between 27
and 34 were on duty
tracking down lions which had earlier killed two cows at
Lesoma.
"They where driving a Botswana government vehicle and had with
them two
government firearms. The men are reported to have got lost on their
hunt and
were caught by Zimbabwean police," he said.
He also said the
scouts are due to appear in court in Victoria Falls on
Thursday and they
appear to be "too traumatised by the ordeal".
The detention of the three
officers follows another incident mid last year
when several Batswana women
and children were detained in Zimbabwe for
entering the country
illegally.
The group was collecting thatching grass when they found
themselves in
Zimbabwe.
The borderline between the two countries is
difficult to identify because
there is no fence or markings.
Botswana
deports close to 3 000 illegal Zimbabwe immigrants per week.
http://english.ohmynews.com
Subsistence farmers struggle to
reach water as more wells run dry
Masimba Biriwasha
Published 2010-01-27
17:37 (KST)
At a public borehole in Zviyambe, a village in the
backyard of Zimbabwe,
approximately 250 kilometers away from Harare, the
capital city,
butterflies, goats, cattle and human beings mix and mingle in
edenic
fashion, all in search of the precious liquid: water.
Under a
blazing sun, Sekai Mabika (not her real name) and her sister take
turns to
fill up buckets with water all the while shooing the goats away
while the
butterflies flutter, sipping at the water spilled to the ground
and the
cattle standby for their turn to drink water.
According to Sekai, she
makes three trips to fetch water at the public
borehole each day. It's
approximately four kilometers away from her
homestead.
"It's a
painful trip, but it has to be done otherwise we will have no
drinking water
at home," she said. "All our homestead wells are dry and,
tomorrow, I have
to do this again."
The mid-afternoon sun, casts a shadow across her face
as she balances the
bucketful of water on her head and walks towards her
homestead, her sister
trailing her.
Throughout the day the sun blasts
across the landscape in this area
literally skyrocketing daytime
temperatures, and in the process, wilting
young crops and drying up water
sources, making subsistence farming very
difficult. Many homesteads in this
smallholder farming area are usually
serviced by a private borehole or well,
but these have dried up in recent
months forcing villagers to people to trek
long distances to available
sources of water.
"It last rained a
long time ago, and it seems this didn't have an impact on
the water table,"
said Cleopas Jeche, a subsistence farmer, "If the rains
don't come, we will
definitely face a drought this season."
The rainfall pattern in Zviyambe,
as in many parts of rural Zimbabwe, has
changed over the past two decades
making the predictability of the rainfall
pattern a thing of the past, yet
smallholder farming patterns have not
changed.
For subsistence
farmers in this remote area, the whole debate on climate
change is ivory
tower gibberish, yet the impact of climate change on their
lives is a
clearly visible matter of life and death.
In the past, Zimbabwe used to
experience the rainy season from October to
January but, now, a blazing sun
graces the sky for most days instead of rain
clouds. Sometimes clouds gather
in the sky, but they quickly dissipate --
dashing hopes and
livelihoods.
Subsistence farming, which provides most people of the area
with their food,
depends on sufficient rainfall, but as the heavens continue
to be elusive,
poor smallholder farmers will either have to adapt to new
livelihood
patterns or face starvation.
No-one calls the phenomena
unfolding here climate change. In fact, many
people think that God is
laughing at them by withholding the rains.
Communities are so desperate,
that they engage in both Christian and
traditional prayer ceremonies in an
attempt to invoke rainfall.
To complicate matters, there is actually no
terminology for climate change
in the local language, despite the fact that
people are aware that the
rainfall seasons have been jagged in recent
years.
The fact of the matter is that if the rains do not fall, people
will not
have food in Zviyambe, as in many parts of rural Zimbabwe. The
ripple
effects will be disastrous in a country that has experienced an
economic
fallout over the past few years. Zimbabwe, as many other southern
African
countries, is already over-burdened with HIV and AIDS, malaria and
tuberculosis. And food insecurity will only serve to compound these
problems.
In Zviyambe, the wells and dams that are drying up are
signs that something
is amiss yet not much is being done to make people
aware of the problem of
climate change. Naming a problem is a key step to
finding solutions.
In many parts of rural Zimbabwe, identifying the
recurrent erratic rainfall
patterns as effects of the global impact of
climate change would be welcome
to help smallholder farmers who rely solely
on rain-fed agriculture find
alternatives to sustain their lives and
livelihoods. For many of the
smallholder farmers finding the right name for
the phenomena of changing
weather patterns that have resulted in water
sources and wetlands drying up
is an urgent imperative.
Harare, January 27, 2010: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is providing 50,000 personal protective clothing kits for influenza preparedness for use by health care workers in Zimbabwe and throughout Southern Africa in the event of an outbreak of H1N1 virus. The kits are worth approximately US$465,000. USAID is collaborating with the World Health Organization (WHO), which will store the stock in its warehouse until the materials are needed.
The new shipment follows an earlier delivery of protective clothing, worth US$27,121, that arrived in Zimbabwe in 2007. “This equipment will be critical to the people of Zimbabwe in the event of an outbreak of H1N1 virus,” commented USAID Director Karen Freeman. “We are committed to helping Zimbabweans combat the H1N1 flu and other diseases at the community level.”
The handover of the kits from USAID to WHO will be marked by a ceremony on January 27, 2010 at Parirenyatwa Hospital. The Minister of Health and Child Welfare Dr. Henry Madzorera, WHO Inter Country Support Coordinator Dr. Oladapo Walker, U.S. Ambassador Charles Ray, and USAID Mission Director Karen Freeman will be in attendance.
USAID, in collaboration with WHO, is in the process of pre-positioning 200,000 personal protective equipment kits in African countries in order to provide adequate and appropriate protection for preparedness, training, surveillance, and outbreak response activities. The kits are part of a larger Humanitarian Pandemic Preparedness Initiative (H2P) now in place across 25 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East that are considered the most vulnerable to the effects of a pandemic. The initiative builds on critical capacities USAID developed to fight H5N1 avian influenza and to support pandemic readiness. Since 2005, the USAID Avian and Pandemic Influenza Response Unit has overseen the programming of US$658 million in support of pandemic preparedness and response programs in 54 countries.
For more information on USAID programs in Zimbabwe, please visit www.usaid.gov/zw.
Issued by Tim Gerhardson, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Embassy, Harare
145 Robert
Mugabe Way, Exploration House, Third Floor; Website: www.chra.co.zw
Contacts:
Mobile: 0912 653 074, 0913 042 981, 011862012 or email info@chra.co.zw, admin@chra.co.zw, ceo@chra.co.zw
Residents
suspicious of Minister Chombo’s
sincerity 27 January
2010
…as the Minister threatens to
fire Councils on allegations of corruption
The Combined Harare Residents
Association (CHRA) and the residents of Harare are suspicious of Minister
Chombo’s sincerity in his insistence on firing Councils that are being accused
of engaging in corrupt activities. Residents have argued that the Minister seems
to be targeting Councilors only and yet there are also Senior Council employees
who have a track record of corruption but the Minister has tirelessly protected
them and has even interfered with investigations into such cases.
It defies logic to note that the
Honorable Minister is actually worried about corruption after he has thwarted
the many attempts by the Harare City Councillors to unearth acts of corruption
that were committed by the appointed personnel at Town House. Residents have not
forgotten how the Minister rescinded the decision by the Harare City Councillors
to halt the Joshua Mqabuko Nkomo Express Road so that investigations could be
carried out into the controversial awarding of tenders that was done on the
project. The Minister also vehemently resisted the Harare Council’s decision to
temporarily close the
Mbare Musika, Mukuvisi Business Units and Machipisa market stalls so as to
ensure that the stalls are re-allocated to people with genuine needs as it had
emerged that the stalls are owned by a few political bigwigs who sublet to
desperate residents.
It is against this background that residents have voiced their suspicions at the
Minister’s sincerity.
CHRA sought the views of some
residents from Mabvuku and Kuwadzana and one resident (who requested anonymity)
revealed her fears at what she called ‘the minister’s persistence to defy the
tenets of democracy’ by firing democratically elected Councils and replacing
them with commissions. Residents are clearly not amused by the Minister’s
threats and they are not convinced that the only reason why he mulls the idea of
firing the Councils is solely on the grounds of corruption but also on political
grounds. The history of Harare and the successive commissions that were
appointed by the Minister following the dismissal of the Mudzuri-led Council is
still alive in the memories of residents. It is not a secret that the sorry
state of the service delivery system in Harare and other cities like Mutare is a
direct product of the incompetence of the Commissions that the Minister
appointed. Up to this day, the present Harare City Council is still struggling
to resuscitate the service delivery system that had virtually collapsed due to
maladministration and mismanagement of the ratepayers’
money.
The Chairperson for Chitungwiza
Residents and Ratepayers’ Association (CHIRRA), Mr. Arthur Taderera also raised
the same concerns saying that a commission appointed by the Minister would never
be acceptable in Chitungwiza due to the poor performance of all the other
previous commissions. He said that although residents are cognizant of the fact
that corruption should not be condoned, residents should be consulted on the
issue as they are well capable of deciding who should and should not go since
they were also responsible for voting the Councillors into office. Mr. Taderera
pointed out that not all Councillors are corrupt and the idea of firing a whole
Council is not fair. Mr. Mojapelo from the Greater Kadoma Residents Association
echoed the same sentiments saying that residents should also have a say in that
issue. He pointed out that senior Council employees are the major culprits in
engaging in corrupt activities and the Minister should not focus his attention
on Councilors only. The investigations should also be inclusive of Senior
Management staff like the Town Clerks and city directors.
CHRA believes that the key to a
democratic local government system is the maximum participation of residents in
key decision making processes. The Association remains committed to fighting for
the residents cause and advocating for democratic, transparent and accountable
local governance as well as lobbying for quality municipal services on a
non-partisan basis.
Week ending 25
Jan 2010
Posted by ZDN on January 26, 2010
Source: Zimbabwe
Democracy Now
SW RADIO AFRICA TRANSCRIPT HOT SEAT: Violet Gonda speaks to Dr. Blessing Miles Tendi, a Zimbabwean researcher in African Politics at Oxford University. |
Dr. Tendi has co-authored an
academic article on the Kenyan and Zimbabwean unity governments. Is a unity
government really the way to solve problems, or just a way of shelving them? Can
it even be called a ‘power sharing government’ if one party still controls the
state machinery? Tendi talks about similarities, differences and future
prospects. He also gives us his views on the implications of statements made by
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the European Union will be ‘guided
by the MDC’ on whether or not to remove targeted sanctions.
VIOLET GONDA: My guest on the programme Hot Seat is Dr Blessing Miles Tendi a Zimbabwean researcher in African Politics at Oxford University. Miles is the author of the forthcoming book entitled: Making History in Mugabe's Zimbabwe - Politics, Intellectuals and the Media. He has also co-authored an academic article on the Kenyan and Zimbabwean Unity governments. On the programme Hot Seat Miles will give us his findings on the similarities, differences and future prospects. Welcome on the programme Miles. MILES TENDI: Thank you for having me. GONDA: Power sharing in Kenya and Zimbabwe – are they one and the same? TENDI: Well there are some similarities but similarities on small issues. On the fundamental matters these are very two different countries, two different dynamics playing out. GONDA: So can you elaborate on this? What are the similarities and of course the differences between the two countries? TENDI: The Kenyan election was in December 2007 and the Zimbabwean one followed in March 2008 and within the media there were a lot of comparisons between the two, people drawing similarities, often portrayals were that Zimbabwe had gone down the path of Kenya. Certainly there were similarities as I was saying earlier on, an incumbent loses an election and refuses to give up power. That was the scenario in Kenya or the scenario in Zimbabwe. After this, strong violence followed in both countries and again external mediation was required to resolve the electoral conflict that arose in both countries - and to resolve these electoral conflicts, power sharing was brokered as a solution and this occurred in both countries. And again we found in Kenya and Zimbabwe, the losing incumbent who was President, Kibaki in Kenya and Mugabe in Zimbabwe retained power through power sharing, retained the presidency which is more powerful and the Opposition figure, candidate Raila Odinga in Kenya secures a Prime Minister post - much weaker. In Zimbabwe Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai secures a position of Prime Minister as well - much weaker position. Those are the similarities between both countries. GONDA: And the differences? TENDI: The differences are where it’s really weighty. I think to start off I think probably the most fundamental difference between both countries is the involvement of the military. In Kenya, post election violence that occurred and during the power sharing talks there is a clear absence of military involvement - violence was not orchestrated by the military and the military has less if none at all of a political role. In Zimbabwe it is strikingly dissimilar. Zimbabwean military heavily involved in national politics; orchestrated much of the violence that occurred between March 2008 and June 2008. So that’s a major difference between the two countries. But again the violence in Kenya was waged by both Kibaki and Odinga supporters, a range of ethnic groups, local militia and a few State actors were involved. Odinga’s ODM, that’s his political party – the Orange Democratic Movement and there was a coalition of ethnic groups which shared a common belief that ‘it was their turn to eat’, so to speak, after prolonged monopolisation of political power, land and the economy by Kibaki Kikuyu ethnic group. This has underpinned the decision of some ODM supporters to back the violence. Kibaki responded to the violence by ordering a campaign of State repression which resulted in many casualties in ODM strongholds but then in contrast in Zimbabwe - completely different. Violence in Zimbabwe was extremely centralised and overwhelmingly one way. In Kenya, Kibaki supporters, Odinga supporters fighting each other where in Zimbabwe it’s just one way, it’s organised by Zanu-PF and the military as mentioned before to crush MDC support before the June run-off. So unlike in Kenya where you had a legion of historical differences based on patterns of ethnic inclusion and exclusion, in Zimbabwe, ideology was the key driver of Zanu-PF propaganda since 1999 sought to portray the MDC as a British controlled political party. To support Tsvangirai, to give Tsvangirai victory in the election was prevented as tantamount to losing Zimbabwe’s sovereignty to Britain. So its ethnic differences, none of them historical, underpinning the motives for violence in Kenya. In Zimbabwe the reasons, underlying are ideological, that’s another key difference between both countries. GONDA: So can you really call it a power sharing government if one party still controls the State machinery? TENDI: Sadly not. There is no real power sharing in Zimbabwe nor in Kenya, this is where both countries are similar. It was part of the ideological differences, the involvement of the military that made it so much harder for Thabo Mbeki to broker a deal in Zimbabwe than it was say for Kofi Annan to do so in Kenya. Because as I said earlier, violence in Kenya was on both sides so in a sense both sides were both guilty of violence that was a stronger incentive so to speak for both sides to come together, work together and show that there’s no prosecutions, a new government is formed there. But going back to your question, I think in Zimbabwe at the time of the negotiations there was a lot of debate going back to the Unity Accord of the ‘80s between Zapu and Zanu about how the MDC must not go down the same road Zapu did and that was swallowed by Zanu-PF, the Unity Accord of the ‘80s. So what I’m getting at here is that the MDC was very much aware of the possibility that it might be sold an unfair deal so to speak and knew that it had to hold out for a more fair deal, which I think it did. But I think a lot of factors, even though they tried, a lot of factors seemed to have converged here - the conditions were worsening at the time, there was a cholera outbreak, there was immense pressure from SADC for the MDC to sign on. GONDA: In your research you said in Kenya a number of leaders and supporters from both parties were implicated in post election human rights abuses and so it was in their mutual interest that past abuses are not investigated. TENDI: Indeed. GONDA: So can you have a successful coalition government without serious human rights abuses being investigated or talked about? TENDI: No. I think you’ve made the Kenyan point clearly - Zimbabwe one way, very much one way where Zanu-PF and the military have largely perpetrated violence against MDC supporters and some of their own Zanu-PF supporters. But again in Zimbabwe because the military has a strong political role, it emerged as an important political player deeply entrenched in the economy as well. So to get the powerful military to accept the power sharing arrangement, you have to take the possibility of prosecutions off the table, to get them to accept this. So in a sense in both countries there’s impunity - perpetrators of violence are free today, and this is a deep seated problem because what happens is, in the case of Zimbabwe for instance, much of the violence we see around every single election has to do with this culture of impunity that has persisted since 1980. The primacy of the cause is the State and the power sharing agreement today doesn’t address these fundamental issues. GONDA: What about this Organ (National Healing) that has been created by the government to deal with such matters and even issues to do with reconciliation, how important is this and do you think it will be successful given what you’ve been telling us? TENDI: It’s been important in name but not practically on the ground. It doesn’t have enough funding to carry out its stated goals, it doesn’t command the authority from key political players within the country and there’s just no political will to see its endeavours go through. So it’s important in name but practically little has been done towards reconciliation, healing. And this is the problem because if you don’t address these there’s a strong likelihood that in the next election we will see violence again. And even in the unity government period, violence against the MDC, civil society, journalists, lawyers has not stopped. Violence is continuing though at a lower level, but has not stopped. Going back to Kenya violence has stopped there but there were reports like last year, BBC investigation late last year showed that the various ethnic groups that fought against each other over the 2007 election had begun rearming, collecting weapons in preparation for the next Kenyan election. So if you don’t resolve these issues, when the next election comes you’re likely to see more violence and this is what we stand to see repeating itself in Kenya and Zimbabwe. GONDA: You have said that Odinga’s ODM was a coalition of ethnic groups who shared a common belief that it was ‘their turn to eat’ and this was after prolonged monopolisation of political power, land and economy by Kibaki’s Kikuyu ethnic group. You went onto say under the guise of unity government, anti-reform elements within both parties conspired to eat together blocking democratic reforms. Now in the Zimbabwe situation, do you see this happening? What are the similarities and differences here? TENDI: Well in Kenya as you rightly describe, because both sides were guilty of violence, there’s the sense in which some groups had been cut out, they didn’t get the opportunity to come into government, they’ve sort of banded together in what would best be called the politics of collusion. They’ve gone together decided that the elite in government will share the national cake, avoid prosecution and they collude to block reforms. In Zimbabwe it’s quite the opposite. Kenya has a long history going back to the ‘60s. There was a one party state at some point and there’s a long history of relatively inclusive elite relations. In Zimbabwe you’ve never had that. The example of Zapu in the 1980s stands out in this regard. Zapu existed, so did Zanu-PF. Zanu-PF felt threatened by Zapu and waged the Gukurahundi to crush Zapu and in effect Zapu had to dissolve itself and become a part of Zanu. You wouldn’t call that inclusive or elite relations based around co-existence. So in Zimbabwe politics has very much been dominated by Zanu-PF. Where an opposition has arisen strong violence has been used to stamp out that opposition. So unlike Kenya the lines in Zimbabwe, there’s a really deep, deep line in the ground because of that, one, and two the ideological description I gave earlier about how Zanu has consistently sought to cast the MDC as a ‘sell-out party’, ‘they’re not indigenous to Zimbabwe’, ‘they’re a British party’, ‘they seek to cede our sovereignty to the West’, such issues – so there’s a deep divide between Zanu-PF and the MDC. So unlike Kenya where this politics of collusion has occurred, in Zimbabwe very much Zanu-PF has sought to retain its hold on power, sought to maintain the status quo regardless of there being a power sharing arrangement. And I think it would be best to describe events today in Zimbabwe as the politics of continuity. What do I mean by the politics of continuity? I think four things. Number one; the point you’ve been bringing up throughout this interview that there’s been no real power sharing. The Presidency held by Mugabe remains strong, Prime Minister weak, so in a sense we’re still where we were before the unity government - we still have a strong Presidency occupied by Robert Mugabe. Number two; the military, police, CIO heads have come together as the Joint Operations Command - their enduring intransigence. I think since 2002, they made it very clear that they would not support any party or leader without liberation war credentials and consistently they’ve waged violence on behalf of Zanu-PF, in support of Zanu-PF. And today, there’s evidence to show that the JOC still does not recognise the MDC as an equal player in the unity government. They do not attend National Security Council meetings for instance, so that’s the second reason for continuity. And then the third one goes back to another point I made earlier – the uninterrupted use of violence by Zanu-PF, right, so nothing has changed either there, violence continues. And then fourthly; there’s also evidence to show that Zanu-PF has gone out of its way to obstruct and subvert the implementation of GPA reforms. So it’s those four things because if the old order is maintained they have a better chance of winning in the next election. GONDA: And so from your observations is a GNU really a way of solving problems or just shelving them? TENDI: Very much shelving not solving at all. But another question we must ask is, it’s easy for you and I and many others to sit there, we can deliberate, criticise power sharing in Zimbabwe and in Kenya but there’s a big elephant in the room which is the alternatives. Had we not had power sharing in Zimbabwe, had we not had power sharing in Kenya, flawed as it is I submit, I’d be the first to say that in both countries the arrangements are flawed but outside of that, what other option did we have? That’s a hard question. GONDA: Yes. TENDI: Very hard, there was talk about military intervention to solve, to end the violence in Kenya, to end the violence in Zimbabwe, that was played up in the media and I’m sure some policy makers around the world may have considered this but you’d have to ask – who would have conducted such a venture? After what we’ve seen in Iraq since 2003 I think many countries are reluctant to be sending their armies elsewhere. Moreover in Africa, sovereignty is a jealously guarded ideal or concept. So it seems unthinkable to even think that African states would put together troops to say invade Zimbabwe or be it Kenya - so that was out. Threats and condemnation? Those don’t work either and Zimbabwe is a very good example of this. The Zanu-PF regime has been threatened, condemned since 2000 but these threats and condemnations have either fallen on deaf ears or Zanu-PF has manipulated them to their advantage. GONDA: I was actually going to ask you about sanctions, do they really work in situations like this? TENDI: Sanctions, well I don’t think so either because the key things to consider first of all was, this was violence in both countries. When there’s a situation of violence the State is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens. The first thing you want to do is to be able to protect the citizens who are being brutalised. Be it Kikuyu groups or supporters of Odinga’s party or the Tsvangirai MDC supporters being beaten up and victimised, you want to protect, that’s the first port of call - protect the brutalised citizens. But sanctions can’t do that. You apply sanctions but that doesn’t give the people on the ground security. So that wouldn’t have worked either right. So I’ll be the first to say power sharing is flawed in both countries but in terms of alternatives it’s very hard to propose what else could have been done and I guess this is something everybody out there could think about, deliberate. GONDA: I’m always asking this question but it seems to be a bit difficult to actually get a proper answer on this. And many people I’ve talked to have said that it will also be ridiculous for the MDC to actually pull out now, so we go back to the same issue - what is the way forward? TENDI: The way forward, I think first we can all acknowledge that the arrangement is flawed in Zimbabwe, but flawed as it is it’s the only train in the station right now. This is what we have and we have to work with this. If it is on the MDC side for instance then they are within the State there is still much that they can do being in the State to push for democratic reforms, economic reforms - I think particularly Tendai Biti’s position as Finance Minister, that’s quite pivotal. And SADC as well, keep pressing SADC to keep up the pressure on Zanu-PF to implement its side of the Agreement and to see through all the GPA reforms. I think the answer, flawed as it is, is around this power sharing government. You have to work with it, there has to be a strong battle of wits by MDC, civil society to get certain reforms implemented, a new constitution. And for the international community as well, particularly the West, to work towards having the GPA agreement fully implemented. I think in essence though public statements that are made, I think it was David Miliband a few days ago in the House of Commons proclaiming support for the GNU I think largely these are untrue. Their mindsets are pretty much set out here in the west. They did not want to see Mugabe stay on, they were against the power sharing arrangement, and it was SADC that put this together really. So very much there was tension there, SADC putting together a power sharing arrangement that leaves Mugabe still in charge with most of his powers retained. And the international community, the west more specifically, was against this arrangement because in many ways the Zimbabwe crisis had become about Mugabe - deeply personalised. GONDA: And since you’ve just brought in the issue of David Miliband, the British Foreign Minister, what did you make of his comments when he was taking questions in parliament, in the House of Commons and he said that the EU would be guided by the MDC on the issue of sanctions. What are the implications of such a statement? TENDI: I think for a long time since the EU sanctions were first imposed, along with ZEDERA from the United States end, Zanu-PF has sought to portray the coming into being of these targeted sanctions as having been instigated by the MDC. You’ve heard this consistently since 2000, that it is the MDC that went out and campaigned for the imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe. So that has been Zanu-PF’s depiction of the sanctions saga since that time. Now the MDC joins the unity government along with Zanu-PF, one of the proclamations they make immediately after the Agreement is signed along with SADC, they call upon all forms of sanctions or restrictive measures against Zimbabwe to be lifted right. The United States and the EU have not done that to this day. This sort of plays into what Mugabe has been saying all along that actually sanctions were never about say conditions in Zimbabwe but about an imperialistic agenda. And as long as these sanctions continue to exist it undermines the position of the MDC in the unity government. Zanu can continue to point that the MDC campaigned for these sanctions, it is their fault this has occurred and we will not implement our side of the GPA reforms until the MDC ask Britain or and the United States to lift these sanctions that these countries campaigned for. And then for Miliband to come out and then say we will take the cue from the MDC, we will wait for the MDC to tell us when to lift them, this is kind of what Mugabe has been saying all along. So Britain has to conduct itself very, very carefully with regard to the Agreement in Zimbabwe particularly to sanctions. And another thing if I may go on a bit, I think the Obama Administration - we all remember when Obama campaigned before he was elected. He made it very clear that he would not seek to polarise, he would seek to bring people together, unlike Bush he would talk to his enemies, so he said if the North Koreans want to speak with him they would conduct diplomacy, with Iran there would be diplomacy, he made all these proclamations. He comes into power and has been seen to be doing this, the diplomatic relations, negotiations going on with Korea, with Iran, with Bashir in Sudan, all these leaders of these countries - gross human rights violators. But with Zimbabwe, that direct line between the White House and State House in Zimbabwe has not been reopened. ZIDERA still exists today so immediately again there is a double standard there. Mugabe can then turn around and say ‘oh yes Bush had put together ZIDERA for regime change purposes and because Obama has come along and hasn’t repealed ZIDERA either it means that the regime change agenda on Zimbabwe still exists’. So again this plays into Mugabe’s construction and this is what I’m trying to get at – the West really has to rethink their foreign policy, strategy and utterances toward the goings on in Zimbabwe and particularly what Miliband had to say in the House of Commons, I think pretty disastrous. GONDA: I’m running out of time but I wanted to ask you more on that. Do you think that they are sanctions against the country or certain individuals in the government and also what about the demands that have been made by the West that Zanu-PF should put its house in order first, especially the issue of implementing democratic reforms before sanctions can be removed? Can you give me a brief answer to this? TENDI: I think what we have to ask is that, because Zanu-PF may argue this was a regime change agenda, this is why sanctions were implemented in the first place but if you go through human rights reports by local NGOs and those from outside it is clear that since 2000 there’s been a systematic, State orchestrated campaign targeting the human rights of Zimbabwean citizens. So there was a strong human rights case against the Zimbabwe government, we have to be clear about that. But I think the danger has become that because these sanctions have existed and the way that Zanu-PF has used its rhetoric around the issue of sanctions being a regime change agenda and the MDC on the other hand, the MDC’s message on sanctions was never as consistent and coherent as that of Zanu-PF so this has allowed Zanu-PF to argue the way it has all these years. And added to that because of the existence of sanctions Zanu-PF can now argue that it is not Zanu-PF’s adoption of an economic structural adjustment programme in the late ‘80s to the early ‘90s that caused Zimbabwe’s economic destruction; Zanu-PF can argue that it’s not the payouts to war veterans in the late ‘90s that caused the root of Zimbabwe’s economic problems or the fact that the DRC war cost us heavily. Zanu-PF can now argue this is all about sanctions, sanctions have caused economic disaster then they can ignore completely all the errors they made since the late 1980s that caused the economic catastrophe that Zimbabwe sees today. So the sanctions issue, very, very complicated, I know we’re running out of time but I think today the situation in Zimbabwe GNU and in terms of countering Zanu-PF propaganda, Zimbabwe would be better off without the existence of these targeted sanctions. They allow Zanu-PF to apportion blame for its economic fall elsewhere and then at the same time it allows them to continually cast the MDC as the campaigners for these sanctions for regime change purposes. GONDA: It’s a pity that I’m running out of time because I would have wanted to find out from you how then would you put pressure on regimes that continue to brutalise their own people, but just finally Miles you say in your paper that power sharing governments threaten to become the new coups and you said that moreover the peace and stability delivered by power sharing governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe may simply represent the calm before the storm. Can you elaborate on this? TENDI: I guess what I was trying to get at is the fact that we say, in the past if a government was unpopular the military could simply stage a coup. But now we’re finding that, yes there’s been a spate, a resurgence of some coups on the continent but we’re also finding that when a leader unwanted by the status quo gets elected, the status quo, i.e. the President, and if the security people in Zimbabwe, does not want the elected opposition leader to take over they simply refuse to give up power. And the result is a power sharing arrangement in which the incumbent still retains most of the power. That’s what I was trying to get at there and that’s worrying because it’s a violation of citizens’ rights to elect leaders of their own choice. And then secondly the calm before the storm goes back to the point I made earlier about how in Zimbabwe, violence continues although at a low level, it is clear from human rights reports that many of the military bases that waged the violence in 2008 have not been disbanded, these are still ready to go so that’s the calm. Come the next election we’re likely to see more violence and it’s still not clear that Mugabe can win an election under free and fair condition - they’d have to rely on violence again to be able to win. And going back to Kenya as I was saying earlier, investigations late last year by the BBC found that rival ethnic groups were already beginning to stock up, pile up weapons in preparation for the next election. So it’s the calm now but come the election again, if there’s no outright winner, no clear winner, we’re right back to where we started. GONDA: OK and I’m afraid we have to end here. That was Dr Blessing Miles Tendi who’s a Zimbabwean researcher in African Politics at Oxford University. Thank you very much. TENDI: Thanks for having me. Feedback can be sent to violet@swradioafrica.com |
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/
Written by The Editor
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
13:39
Zanu (PF) needs to realise that it is wasting breath in continuing to
insist
that the MDC campaigns for the removal of the targeted measures
against its
corrupt and abusive hierarchy. And it will not succeed in
blackmailing the
international community into removing these measures in
exchange for
so-called power sharing.
The measures, which in essence are
nothing more than travel and banking
restrictions aimed at preventing the
thievocracy from stashing away their
ill-gotten gains, were put into place
because of the past behaviour of these
individuals. (In any case why would a
patriotic African leader want to bank
his money in Europe?) The reasons why
those measures were put in place still
exist. These include, to mention but
a few: extra judicial killings,
kidnappings, no rule of law, repressive
legislation such as the Public Order
and Security Act (POSA) and the Access
to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (AIPPA), use of the security
forces and the judiciary to harass,
abduct, torture and kill those
considered to be opponents, violent invasions
of commercial farms, police
intimidation and harassment of MDC and human
rights activists, and failure
to conduct a comprehensive and transparent
land audit - which is being
fiercely resisted.
Independent observers such as Human Rights Watch have
correctly pointed out
that the "power-sharing" government has largely failed
to end rights abuses
or to institute fundamental reforms. In particular,
they mention the
continued persecution of elected MDC activists through
frivolous,
politically-motivated prosecutions. At least 17 MDC-T legislators
face
various trumped-up criminal charges, with at least five legislators
already
convicted by the courts. For its part, if Zanu (PF) is serious about
turning
over a new leaf, and returning Zimbabwe to the rule of law, they
need to
implement fully all the terms of the GPA to which Mugabe appended
his
signature. If they cannot even be trusted to implement something they
signed
up to, why should the world reward them?
Only when all these have
been fully met can the people of Zimbabwe agree
that the international
community be asked to reward Zanu (PF) officials by
removing the targeted
measures.
The MDC has been patient in the face of extreme provocation. They
are
vilified daily on state radio and television and in the state-controlled
media. They cannot be expected to campaign for the lifting of punitive
measures against those who continue to abuse them in this fashion.
http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/
Written by John Robertson
Wednesday,
27 January 2010 10:39
Despite all its problems, Zimbabwe still looks
robust on the surface. And
that superficial evidence has led to errors of
judgement by observers and
analysts, writes JOHN ROBERTSON. The real
picture, he says, is one of
devastated production and massive
unemployment.
These observers are often people who spend time in many other
African
countries and, in their comments, they always point out how much
better off
Zimbabweans are than the citizens of wherever else they have
been.
Unfortunately, the superficial impressions are misleading, and even
more
unfortunately, some of the most misled people are Zimbabweans, not
visitors.
They also know that most of Zimbabwe's neighbours do not have the
extensive
industrial sites and cannot boast of anything like the extent of
Zimbabwe's
development in schools, hospitals, commercial properties,
up-market suburbs
and golf courses, but they also misjudge their current
status.
Assuming that its installed capacity is still in place, many of these
analysts have decided that Zimbabwe's prospects of recovery are so good that
only slight changes in direction and a couple of years would be enough to
see the country regain its former ranking, second only to South
Africa's.
Zimbabwe's politicians, of whichever stripe, have enthusiastically
embraced
this belief, so much do they want it to be true. Their conviction
that it is
true has been vigorously fed into the short-term and medium-term
recovery
plans, which all hinge on forecast recoveries in investment
inflows,
employment, export revenues and tax revenues.
In their efforts
to force obedience and compliance from the business sector
as well as from
ordinary citizens, government brought productive sector
investment almost to
a halt. This has been immensely costly because, in a
competitive world,
continuous investment is needed in industrial plant, in
production methods,
in staff training, in market research, in design
engineering and in
establishing sources of material supplies as well as
sound destinations for
finished goods. In Zimbabwe, all this investment
dried up.
Massive
handicaps
Government interference in the business sector, through its
adoption of
fixed exchange rates, price controls, interest rate controls,
import
controls and state-controlled buying monopolies for fuel as well as
staple
foods, brought an end to inflows of new ideas that would have kept
Zimbabwean goods competitive.
They even made the maintenance of existing
production facilities impossible
to fund, or even to justify. They also
brought massive handicaps to bear on
those who became responsible for tens
of thousands of industrial workers,
but who could be far too easily blamed
for business failures for which they
were in no way responsible.
Now,
Zimbabwe's manufacturing capacity has fallen to a fraction of its
former
size and the country has become more dependent on imported finished
goods
than at any time since it started building its own industrial base.
Few
companies can afford to offer apprenticeships or training courses, and
very
few are even planning for the expansion of their workforce.
This accounts for
the Zimbabwean diaspora. Years ago, many of those who had
good jobs in
Zimbabwe realised that their career development paths had
either become
indistinct, or they had disappeared completely. For many of
their younger
counterparts, the prospects of even getting onto a career path
were
evaporating as employers, constrained by price controls, absurd
exchange
rates and enormous difficulties in acquiring foreign currency,
found it
impossible to work to business expansion plans. For many workers
and work
seekers alike, their best option was to leave the country.
As many of the
same constraints affected the state-run services, the skilled
technicians
and administrators who knew how to make railways, hospitals or
water
purification plants work properly, or knew how to maintain aircraft,
power
stations, traffic lights or roads, decided that their own careers
would
progress faster somewhere else. With their departures, the services
infrastructure has fallen into disrepair.
Loss of expertise
The
roads are crumbling, power supplies are erratic, water no longer reaches
many suburbs and now it cannot even be relied upon to keep flowing in
business areas. The railways and airways can cope with only a fraction of
traffic handled ten years ago, the health services collapsed in most parts
of the country and the quality of teaching has left most children incapable
of passing school examinations.
One of the most telling of the estimated
national statistics is that the
number of people in formal employment is now
put at little more than 800,000
people, including the civil service. It has
fallen to that level from more
than 1,300,000 in 1997. The last time a
figure as low as 800,000 was
recorded in the country's statistics was in
1970, 40 years ago, but at that
time, Zimbabwe's population was about half
the size it is now.
Fleeting observers who note the bustling business
activity and all the
vehicles on the roads would not easily see the
underlying weakness of the
economy, partly because it is disguised by the
huge numbers now seeking some
kind of income from the informal
economy.
The informal economy includes the communal land farmers, where this
year
almost all of Zimbabwe's farming activities are taking place. The land
confiscated from large-scale commercial farms lies uncultivated throughout
the country. Subsidies are needed to replace the loans the banks used to
offer when the farmers owned the land, but no such funds are now
available.
So the quick recovery is not on its way. And it will not be able
to start
before a great deal of headway is made in fixing the
infrastructure,
updating the manufacturing plant, winning back lost markets,
overcoming
dependence on imports and rebuilding government's tax
base.
Every step of the way calls for people. But the people concerned are
not on
their way either, and won't be until the needed political changes
have
restored their confidence.