Mugabe can appoint secretaries - Justice Smith

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=12624


March 1, 2009




TRANSCRIPT of interview conducted by Violet Gonda of SW Radio Africa's Hot
Seat programme with  former High Court Judge George Smith on the issue of
the controversial appointments of Permanent Secretaries in the inclusive
Zimbabwe government.

(Broadcast 27 February, 2009)

Violet Gonda: Retired High Court Judge, Justice Leslie George Smith is my
guest on the Hot Seat programme. Justice Smith worked in the Attorney
General's office as a Solicitor General in the Ian Smith government, and
then was secretary to the Prime Minister during the Abel Muzorewa era. He
then went on to advise Robert Mugabe during the transition and later became
a High Court judge. How are you, Justice Smith?

Leslie George Smith: I'm very well, thank you.

Gonda: Let's start with this issue of the procedures in the public service;
there is this squabble over the appointment of permanent secretaries in the
new inclusive government and I guess there must be a clear system that
exists with regard to how the public service actually works. Now as a former
senior civil servant can you first of all tell us how Permanent Secretaries
are appointed?

Smith: Well, the constitution provides that there shall be a public service
for the administration of the country and then it establishes a Public
Service Commission which is responsible for doing things in connection with
the public service; in other words, overseeing the conditions of service,
salaries and everything like that for members of the public service. So all
appointments, terminations of office are done by the Public Service
Commission with the exception of secretaries and ministers. Now Section 77
of our Constitution provides that the power to appoint persons to hold the
office of Secretary to the Cabinet or Secretary of a Ministry shall rest in
the President after consultation with the Public Service Commission. So in
other words, all appointments to the public service are made by the
Commission with the exception of Permanent Secretaries which the President
makes after consultation with the Public Service Commission.

Gonda: So are they political appointees even though they are civil servants
that will be appointed to these ministries?

Smith: Yes, they are political appointments. All appointments other than to
the position of Secretary are made by the Public Service Commission and they
would do it on merit and seniority and service and all that sort of thing.
But this power of the President, he can appoint any person that he wants as
Secretary to the Cabinet or Secretary to the Ministry, all he has to do is
consult with the Public Service Commission. If the Commission is not
consistent with the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission,
then he causes Parliament to be informed, but I mean all he has to do is
inform Parliament; parliament can't set aside the appointment or anything
like that.

Gonda: As you know, President Robert Mugabe did go ahead and he announced
the new Permanent Secretaries and they are all from Zanu-PF and basically
the two MDC leaders, Morgan Tsvangirai's and Arthur Mutambara's, were not
happy about that. They held a press conference this week where they said
that this is a breach of the Constitutional Amendment 19 which they say
demands that the President can only make senior appointments after
consultations with the two deputies and Prime Minister.

Now can you comment on the MDCs' position?

Smith: Well I think if the parties did enter into an agreement that
appointments by the President would only be made in consultation and
association with the other two parties so it does seem as if he is breaching
the agreement that was entered into with those two parties.

Gonda: But if we are to go with what you are saying that Mugabe has a right
to make these appointments, in terms of procedure, is he right?

Smith: Well I think, legally speaking, as long as he did consult with the
Public Service Commission, and I can't say whether or not he's done that,
but if there was full consultation with the Public Service Commission then
the appointments would be legally in order.

Gonda: Is it fair that the procedure should remain the same in an
environment where the civil service has been politicised?

Smith: Well I would say that if you've got an inclusive government where you've
got the three parties then they should also be involved in the appointment
of Permanent Secretaries because it is obviously very important to an
incoming Minister who his Permanent Secretary would be, and the problem with
a lot of these ministries is going to be that there is a new minister and
two days after his swearing in as a Minister, there's a new Permanent
Secretary so you've got two completely new people at the head of the
ministry.

Gonda: What happened during the transition?

Smith: Well it was only at the Lancaster House, and constitution, that
provided that the appointments of Permanent Secretaries would be made by the
Prime Minister then as it was, and now the President. At the time of, under
the Ian Smith government and the Muzorewa government, the Public Service
Commission or the Public Service Board as it then was, was responsible for
all appointments in the public service including heads of ministries. So
that's why, when Bishop Muzorewa became Prime Minister, all the Permanent
Secretaries continued in office; similarly when Mr Mugabe became Prime
Minister, all the people in office, including the Permanent Secretaries
continued and I was amongst them at the time, when all the heads of
ministries went to Mr Mugabe as Prime Minister and said that we will
continue to serve the government of the country as we have done in the past.
And then it was only after Mr Mugabe became Prime Minister and then
President that he took over powers to appoint Permanent Secretaries.

Gonda: So he had.

Smith: Before that, it couldn't be done.

Gonda: Before that, it couldn't be done? That is basically what I wanted to
find out because I'd also heard that in the independence transition, people
were understudied and then upon winning the election, Mugabe signed an
executive order to allow the appointments of Permanent Secretaries from
people that were actually from his party.

Smith: Well it was only after his appointment that he was able to appoint
people from his party. What he started was at Deputy Secretary etc - Under
Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries and then it was as the Permanent
Secretaries resigned or retired, that the posts were filled by the then
Prime Minister.

Gonda: So with the situation now and what has already been done, can these
appointments be reversed, in other words is there any remedy to the
situation?

Smith: Well it's difficult to see - if the President did consult with the
Public Service Commission, then the appointment would have been done in
terms of the constitution, it would be difficult to see how that could be
set aside legally. And the MDC might well, the problem they would have is if
the President said well those appointments were validly made, they would
then have to try to bring a case in court saying because there was no
consultation, their approval wasn't obtained then the appointments must be
set away and I can't see our present judiciary agreeing with that sort of
argument.

Gonda: When you say that you can't see how the present judiciary would agree
with that argument, can you elaborate on that?

Smith: Well I think they would have to - you know to expect them to do that
would be, to accept an argument which there's no legal precedent for.

Gonda: So if you were to mediate this particular impasse what would your
position or advice be to mediate the differences between the three
principals?

Smith: (chuckles) That's very difficult to say because obviously, you can
understand why the MDC leaders would want to have a say in who the Permanent
Secretaries are because in a good civil service you know you shouldn't have
political appointments especially at that level, and if you are coming on as
a Minister and if you've got a Permanent Secretary who is a member of
another political party and doesn't agree with what you are trying to do it's
going to be very difficult to run that ministry. And I think that is why
obviously the two MDC people wanted to have a say in the appointment of
Permanent Secretaries.

Gonda: Do you think to some extent that the two MDCs could have, in the last
few years, found a way of getting their own people also rise through the
ranks in the civil service?

Smith: I don't see how they would ever have been able to get people they
wanted appointed in the civil service, all they could have done is to
approach people already in the service to see if they would be prepared to
adopt the policies of the MDC. But that would have had to be purely done
unofficially.

Gonda: And what about the issue of Ambassadors - is this only to do with
Permanent Secretaries or also the Ambassadors where Mugabe has full
authority to appoint whoever he wants?

Smith: Yes he has full authority to appoint whoever he wants because they
are representatives of the country and his party.

Gonda: And where will the two MDCs come in here?

Smith: Well I think there would be even bigger problems as far as the
diplomatic purse is concerned because that is purely a presidential
prerogative to appoint and demote Ambassadors.

Gonda: This sounds all so confusing, I don't even know what to say because
it seems like it's a lose/lose situation for the two MDCs because it appears
that - if we go with what you are saying - that Mugabe has total power, and
the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai does not have much.

Smith: Obviously I think that is why they wanted that as part of that
agreement. And it would appear that the President and Zanu-PF accepted that
they would do that.

Gonda: Is what's happening because Morgan Tsvangirai does not have executive
powers and is it possible for the two leaders to actually share executive
powers?

Smith: Well that can only be done on the basis of goodwill you see because
the thing is that our constitution provided for the President and these were
his powers - and with this interim arrangement, constitutions merely provide
to say that there could be a Prime Minister and two Deputy Prime Ministers
but no specific functions were given to the Prime Minister or the Deputy
Prime Ministers and I think this is one of the problems.

Gonda: Let's move on to another subject and I would like to get your views
as a person who has worked on the bench, what are your views on the issue of
the detention of MDC and civic activists like Roy Bennett and Jestina Mukoko
and do you consider them as political detainees?

Smith: Well you know, with my legal background, it's very difficult for me,
I couldn't answer a question like that because unless you know what the case
against is and what evidence the police have, it's very difficult for me to
comment.

Gonda: OK what about specifically on the issue of Roy Bennett and I would
just like to hear your legal interpretation of this. For his bail
application Morgan Tsvangirai stood as surety in his capacity as Prime
Minister, is this procedural?

Smith: It's the first time I have ever heard this being done, where the
Prime Minister comes in - you see the problem too is that I don't actually
know what was in his letter or what it said or anything. I've just got press
reports and they differ in different reports depending on which press
article you are reading. It's unprecedented but I suppose the thing is if
you've got the Attorney General who says that he's a supporter of Zanu-PF,
Morgan Tsvangirai might well feel that it's a political position in the
position of the Attorney General. That might be why he has this problem
because he feels that the Attorney General is not being impartial because of
previous statements that he had made.

Gonda: So in theory and in practice, the Attorney General should be
representing the Prime Minister - is this the case?

Smith: Well, this comes back to the problem with our Constitution. You've
got a position of the Prime Minister without what his functions are and all
that sort of thing. The Attorney General represents the State, the
President - and Mr Tsvangirai is just like a Minister, or a Prime Minister,
he's just a member of that so you couldn't really say the Attorney General
represents the Prime Minister.

Gonda: But what does this mean on the issue of separation of powers between
the judiciary and the executive?

Smith: Well what it means is that the executive should never try and put
pressure on the judiciary you know to find a judgement of guilty or innocent
or in a civil case if that is what the order should be about. And it could
well be interpreted that the letter of the Prime Minister is an indication
to the Courts that this is what the Prime Minister expects the Court to do.
In other words, irrespective of the merits of the case, to release him on
bail - and that's the function of the judge to do depending on the facts
before him, the information and that sort of thing.

Gonda: That is where the problem is to some extent. What do you do when the
judiciary plays a partisan role? I've interviewed some of the defence
lawyers like Beatrice Mtetwa and they complain that the Attorney General's
office has been misusing certain parts of the constitution and also invoking
sections of the Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act. What can you say about
that?

Smith: Well I think it's very unfortunate that so many members of the legal
profession do have that perception of the Attorney General's office. I'm not
saying what my perceptions are, but I'm just saying that it is very
widespread in the legal fraternity from what I've heard and that's what
makes a problem and probably this is why Mr Tsvangirai thought that he
should write that letter.

Gonda: So what are your perceptions of the AG's office?

Smith: I'd rather not comment, maybe that explains it.

Gonda: (laughs) OK, but why not though?

Smith: I'd rather not go down that route, you know. I was in the Attorney
General's office for nearly 20 years, I was a judge of the High Court for
nearly 20 years and I'd rather not get involved in these political things at
this late stage when I'm retired.

Gonda: Right. What about on the issue of the land invasions on farms that
are protected by a SADC tribunal ruling and the SADC ruling is not being
implemented in Zimbabwe. I understand also that the Attorney General and the
Chief Magistrate actually held a workshop for magistrates in Chegutu earlier
this month at which magistrates were told to ignore this ruling. Is the
judiciary bound by this SADC decision?

Smith: No because we haven't got any legislation that makes it part of our
law but what I find difficult to understand as far as SADC is concerned is
that when this country joined SADC and signed up as a member, one of the
obligations was to comply with all the provisions of the SADC treaty. Now
the SADC Tribunal has come down unanimously and said well they've breached
this one provision of the treaty about expropriating property without paying
compensation. And four out of five have come out and said they've breached
another provision of the constitution by acting on a racial basis,
discriminating on the grounds of race. Now that is the finding of the
tribunal that's been set up by SADC. Now you've got the SADC members where a
member has just blatantly breached, or the tribunal has found that it's just
blatantly breached the treaty and the SADC members seem to say well, not
even slap their wrist, just say well that's what the tribunal says and just
accept it and carry on as normal as though it's quite in order for a member
to breach a condition of the treaty.

Gonda: What could SADC actually do then if a member is in breach of the
treaty?

Smith: Well, you know I'm not really au fait with the provisions of the SADC
treaty but I would think like any EU agreement or SADC or something like
that, if a member breaches one of the fundamental provisions of that treaty
and the members don't do anything about it, then what is that treaty worth?
I mean, it means any other member state can breach any other conditions it
wants, can say 'oh don't worry about being democratic . we can have a
military coup, I know we're breaching this provision about democratic
government but so what?'

I mean we've got the case where as far as Zimbabwe's concerned the SADC
members completely ignore a breach identified by their own tribunal then how
are they going to act differently if any other country breaches the treaty?
Then what worth is the value of the treaty?

Gonda: I understand that the Chief Magistrate Herbert Mandaya actually told
the magistrates at this workshop that treaties that are entered into by
government cannot form part of Zimbabwean laws unless they go through
Parliament. Has he got a point there?

Smith: That is right yes, but normally when a government does enter into a
treaty and is saying that it will do this and observe this and that, then it
passes legislation to give effect to the provisions of that treaty. And if
our government hasn't done that then they haven't amended our law to make it
part of the laws of our country.

Gonda: And finally Justice Smith it has been widely reported that you
retired because of problems that you had with the President.  Is there any
truth to that?

Smith: That is definitely not true. In terms of the Constitution, a judge
retires at the age of 65, unless he can produce a clear bill of health
showing that he is physically and mentally in sound condition and I was able
to do that, but then in terms of the Constitution I turned 70 on the 19th of
June 2003 so I had to retire at the end of June 2003.

Gonda: And it had nothing to do with political interference?

Smith: Nothing to do with political interference at all.

Gonda: But you are sometimes called back to the Bench whenever you are
needed?

Smith: No. In terms of the pension conditions, a judge who retires can be
called upon to come back for one term a year. I was asked if I would be
prepared to come back and I certainly didn't want to lose my pension and I
said I would and I've never been called on to go back.

Gonda: Do you miss it?

Smith: I did at first but the way things are at the moment I wouldn't be
very happy to be back there. I prefer doing my consulting and that sort of
thing, arbitrations, and that I find much more interesting and pleasant.

Gonda: OK, and a final word Justice Smith.

Smith: I am very optimistic about the change that is coming. I think this
new inclusive government has got a very uphill task but as long as we have
people with goodwill and they really mean what they have committed
themselves to, then I think there's a good chance of us turning around the
economy and restoring the rule of law in the country.

Gonda: Thank you very much Justice Leslie George Smith.

Smith: Ok.

Feedback can be sent to violet@swradioafrica.com

Madhuku up in arms over constitution

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=12604


March 1, 2009




By Owen Chikari

MASVINGO - National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) chairman Lovemore Madhuku
has attacked the inclusive government for what he says is an attempt to
force Zimbabweans to accept the so-called draft Kariba Constitution.

Addressing over 200 NCA activists in Masvingo on Sunday, Madhuku said
Zimbabweans should be given the chance to make their own constitution
instead of being forced to swallow what he referred to as a bitter pill.

A draft constitution was cobbled together in the tourist resort town of
Kariba by Zanu-PF and the MDC parties during protracted negotiations which
led to the establishment of an all-inclusive government.

While praising the inclusive government for recognising that Zimbabwe needed
a new constitution, Madhuku castigated the process that the coalition
government sought to follow to produce the constitution.

He if the Kariba draft was adopted the people would effectively be excluded
from the process.

"We need a people-driven constitution and not a draft which was drafted by
three individuals," said Madhuku.

"Our position is that the government should put the Kariba draft in its
pocket and allow people to participate in the writing of their own
constitution.

"Whether the Kariba document is good or not, we do not care but what we want
is a process in which all Zimbabweans participate."

Madhuku said a national stakeholders' commission should be put in place and
be chaired by a reputable judge to spearhead the constitutional reform
process.

He said political parties, especially the MDC, were now refusing to
acknowledge that they had put the constitutional reform process as their
number one priority after getting into power.

"We want the MDC to remember that we have walked together since 1999 in our
pursuit of a new constitution but what is shocking is that the opposition
party appears to have forgotten all this after it got into government,"
Madhuku said.

He said he had already met the Minister of Constitutional and Parliamentary
Affairs, Advocate Eric Matinenga. He said he had made it clear that the NCA
wanted a people-driven constitution.

"I met Matinenga and made clear our position," said Madhuku. "We are now
waiting for his response."

Madhuku said his organisation was embarking on an awareness campaign
countrywide to make sure that Zimbabwean knew of their right to make their
own constitution.

According to Madhuku the Kariba draft constitution was authored by Patrick
Chinamasa, Nicholas Goche both of Zanu -PF, Welshman Ncube of the
Mutambara-led MDC and the mainstream MDC's Tendai Biti.

"We cannot allow these four gentlemen to write a constitution for
Zimbabweans who now number almost 16 million," said Madhuku.

He said even if Parliament was involved the whole process would be a mockery
since a constitutional reform process has to involve all people instead of
their representatives.

According to Article 6 of the Global Political Agreement signed on September
15 last year, the three political parties now constituting the inclusive
government agreed on constitutional reform and that the process should be
people-driven.

However, concern has been raised after it emerged that the Kariba document
would be used as a benchmark for the constitutional reform process.

One the eve of his 85th birthday, President Robert Mugabe said in an
interview with ZTV that the Kariba document would be looked into by the
three parties and then put before the people in referendum once the three
parties had agreed.

Madhuku, however, said Mugabe was speaking as if all people belonged to the
three parties that now formed the inclusive government.

"We want all parties, including opposition political parties that are not in
government, to be involved in the process," said Madhuku.

"We want the next elections to be held in a free and fair environment under
a new people-driven constitution."

MISA-Zimbabwe statement on the inclusive government and media reforms

http://www.zimbabwejournalists.com

2nd Mar 2009 00:50 GMT


By a Correspondent

MISA-Zimbabwe cautiously welcomes the formation of the inclusive government
in terms of the September 15 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) and
extends its congratulations to Honorable Morgan Tsvangirai, Honourable
Aurthur Mutambara and Honourable Thokozani Khupe following their swearing in
as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers of Zimbabwe respectively.

We also take this opportunity to congratulate all the new government
ministers and in particular Honourables Nelson Chamisa the Minister of
Information and Communications Technology and Webster Shamu, the Minister of
Media, Information and Publicity as well as the Deputy Minister of Media,
Information and Publicity, Honourable Jameson Timba.

Cognisant of the immense challenges of the new government and the nation's
high expectations in addressing the socio-economic and political problems
afflicting the country, MISA-Zimbabwe remains guided by its mission and
vision as enunciated under the 1991 Windhoek Declaration in its engagement
with the new government and other key stakeholders.

As the new information ministers and the government at large assume their
responsibilities, MISA-Zimbabwe humbly reminds them of Zimbabwe's urgent
need to fulfil its obligations under the international treaties and charters
that the country has ratified, among them, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Banjul Declaration on the Principles of
Freedom of Expression in Africa, Windhoek Declaration and African Charter on
Broadcasting.

It is also MISA Zimbabwe's considered view that a free and unfettered media
will undoubtedly play a critical role in the realisation of all other
aspects that are articulated in the GPA especially the transformation of the
Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) from a state to a truly independent
Public Service Broadcaster.

As Zimbabwe painstakingly works towards ushering a new political
dispensation in the context of the inclusive government, MISA-Zimbabwe urges
the new political players to immediately demonstrate their commitment to
freedom of expression, media freedom, justice, equality, tolerance,
openness, non-discrimination and respect to human dignity through the
following concrete actions:

1. An immediate cessation of the arrests, harassment and torture of
journalists, civic society activists and media houses reporting on Zimbabwe.
2. The granting of permission to all media houses, (both foreign and local)
to cover the political situation as it unfolds.
3. The suspension and subsequent repealing of all repressive legislation
that targets the media and in particular, the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), Public Order and Security Act (POSA),
Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) and the Interception of Communications Act.
4. An immediate conversion of the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation from a
state broadcaster into a truly independent public broadcaster as mandated
under the guidelines of the African Charter on Broadcasting.

5. Recognising the urgent and pressing need for a people driven consultative
constitution-making process that will culminate in a new democratic
constitution that explicitly guarantees media freedom and access to
information.


In making these pleas, MISA-Zimbabwe remains committed to playing a
meaningful role with all progressive forces without any fear or bias towards
the emergence of an environment that allows citizens to enjoy their
fundamental right to freedom of expression, association, assembly, access to
information and media freedom to foster democracy equality, human dignity
and economic prosperity.

No easy choices available for Zimbabwe currency reform

http://www.businessday.co.za

 02 March 2009

Peter Draper and Andreas Freytag

ZIMBABWE is much in the news again with its newly minted unity government.
It remains to be seen whether it will cohere and drive a concerted
reconstruction process. Within this reconstruction, Zimbabwe's future
monetary policy is of enormous importance owing to the country's infamous
inflation rate.


Three monetary reform scenarios are being discussed: an ordinary or crawling
peg to a basket of currencies; "randisation" (adopting the rand); and a
currency board - that is, a domestic currency with the money base 100%
backed by foreign reserves. The latter two would entail Zimbabwe
surrendering monetary policy sovereignty - an issue attracting considerable
controversy .


The currency board or "dollarisation" option is associated with US scholar
Steve Hanke. He refers approvingly to the currency board Southern Rhodesia
operated in the 1940s. However, the preconditions were very dissimilar to
Zimbabwe today. Regardless of Rhodesian governments' other failings, their
administrative capacity, and therefore the credibility of any new
institutions, was far more developed, while trade and capital markets were
far less integrated than today.

President Robert Mugabe not only destroyed the economy, thereby bringing
hyperinflation, poverty and starvation, but he also eradicated a workable
administration. The latest manifestation is the cholera crisis, now
reportedly affecting 80000 people and spreading rapidly into neighbouring
countries. Critically, all kinds of economic institutions necessary for a
country to develop are now lacking.


This does not imply that monetary reforms cannot take place. It can,
however, make clear that a currency board or dollarisation may be difficult
to implement. Both regimes necessitate meeting a number of institutional
pre-conditions, particularly fiscal stability, openness to trade and capital
flows, and market flexibility. Another basic condition is trust in markets
and in state agencies. If the central bank is not to be trusted, why should
the ordinary Zimbabwean citizen trust a currency board (unless it is located
out of the country)?


Further , a currency board would require the Zimbabwean government to
possess sufficient foreign exchange to finance the monetary base. In
January, the latest data available, the Zimbabwean central bank's foreign
assets accounted for about 0,1% of the monetary base. Clearly reserves are
too small to finance the monetary base in a currency board without recourse
to huge foreign capital injections from the donor community. But those are
only likely to be forthcoming once Mugabe and his securocrats have
decisively left the scene - a prospect we find rather bullish under current
political circumstances.


Over time a currency board system requires the ability to earn the necessary
money growth on global markets. Zimbabwe does not have the production
structure (even before the meltdown) to generate the exports required; the
human resource capacity to sustain such a high rate of exchange (that is,
the US dollar) through rapid productivity growth; and the high rate of
exchange would encourage imports (no bad thing if you have the foreign
exchange, but Zimbabwe won't) while discouraging exports.

Hence Hanke's advice could penalise Zimbabwe's recovery for a long time.


Finally, it is not obvious that the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank should lose its
competencies, as the currency board solution would require. Those advocating
this path argue that the Zimbabwe Reserve Bank has become so politicised
(correct) that it is beyond redemption (debatable). However, the same
argument applies to other state institutions used as Zanu (PF)'s piggy bank.


Overall, a currency board may be the least attractive alternative.


What about the second one, namely adopting the rand, as recently suggested
by President Kgalema Motlanthe, and rejected by Zimbabwe's new Finance
Minister, Tendai Biti? For each South African citizen R1000 are circulating;
adopting the same ratio in Zimbabwe means R11bn would be needed. The total
cash circulation in SA is about R73bn. A further R11bn would add 15% - a
substantial increase.


This solution requires dismantling the central bank's money-issuing
function. Politically this may be easier than having a crippled central
bank. Political pressure would be less than that upon a currency board as
money issuance would require South African approval. Politically this would
be very tricky. On the other hand, Zimbabwe would gain the reputation of the
rand without requiring the backup of foreign reserves.


However, SA's partners in the Common Monetary Area (CMA) (Namibia, Lesotho,
and Swaziland) may not support this path.

Also, unless SA imposes stringent conditions on the reconstruction loans it
will undoubtedly extend to Zimbabwe, the latter's temptation to deviate from
the CMA's strictures using fiscal policy, thereby destabilising regional
currency arrangements, will be huge - especially in the likely absence of
major donor funding.


What about the third alternative put forward by Biti, a simple (or crawling)
peg to a basket of currencies including the rand? This scenario, coupled
with a Zimbabwe Reserve Bank and finance ministry with new leadership seems
possible and politically most feasible. It requires less ambitious reforms
in other areas and does not require huge foreign reserves to sustain it. The
question is whether Zimbabwean institutions would have the confidence of
their people and foreign investors to sustain the peg.

As with the other two scenarios it is unthinkable without a ban on
government borrowing at the central bank. This condition must be highlighted
as it is the sine qua non of any sensible monetary reform.


If the government can keep away from the money press, both the peg and the
circulation of the rand are sustainable. Overall, it is not clear to us
which is more desirable. On political grounds the peg is more feasible, but
if the economy is to be brought back on track, inflation has to be reduced
quickly and randisation proffers that possibility.


The really interesting question , if Zimbabwe did opt for randisation, is
whether SA will step up to the plate? It has the institutions to do so: a
mostly independent central bank; strong development finance institutions;
and Zimbabwe could join a reformed Southern African Customs Union to gain
access to revenue - although we would worry about the effect on Zimbabwe's
trade policy. Unfortunately SA's record on Zimbabwe policy to date is not
encouraging, and with its rising budget deficit, pressing social problems,
and escalating debate over the future of domestic monetary policy,
Zimbabwean policy makers should exercise caution.




Draper is Trade Project Head, South African Institute of International
Affairs. Freytag is Professor of Economics, Friederich-Schiller-University,
Jena, Germany.

Too soon to lift sanctions against Zanu (PF), despite SADC call

http://www.businessday.co.za/

02 March 2009

Dianna Games

SA's Foreign Minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, has been quick to praise the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) for its role in finding a
solution to the Zimbabwe problem. At the meeting of SADC finance ministers
in Cape Town last week, she said: "As SADC we can today proudly state that
we have played a major role in facilitating the political solution to the
situation in Zimbabwe."

This is the same person who, just a few years ago, was seen being wined and
dined by Zanu (PF) ministers in smart Harare restaurants, being fed dollops
of Zanu (PF) propaganda, as were other politicians in the region. For years,
SA and the SADC watched Zimbabwe's downward spiral, doing little more than
finding politically expedient excuses to counter international criticism of
the appalling behaviour of President Robert Mugabe and his government.

SADC's eagerness now to take the credit for a turnaround in Zimbabwe ignores
two key contributing factors. One is the resilience of the opposition
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which found no favour with SADC
leaders. The other is that Zanu (PF)'s compromise in agreeing to a unity
government was driven more by reduced looting opportunities in a broken
economy than by regional persuasion.


Now we, the regional taxpayers, are being asked to contribute to a $2bn
recovery package for Zimbabwe. SADC leaders' complicity with the Zanu (PF)
regime has made this an expensive exercise; even a year ago, fixing Zimbabwe
would have cost a lot less than it does now.


Of course, SADC must contribute meaningfully. But its attendant call for the
lifting of international sanctions may be premature.


The biggest beneficiaries of any such action will be the very people who
pushed Zimbabwe to the brink - Zanu (PF) officials, their friends, families
and business associates.


Official sanctions against Zimbabwe are targeted against individuals,
government agencies and companies with which Zanu (PF) government did
business. The sanctions have had an effect on finance coming to the country.
But money has mostly stayed away from Zimbabwe because of poor governance,
official theft of state resources, investor insecurity, rigged elections and
human rights abuses.




While a limited revision of sanctions could be considered where it affects
credit lines and relationships with multilateral organisations, it is too
soon to bolster the former ruling party's legitimacy by lifting the targeted
sanctions.

Even at this early stage of the unity government process, Mugabe has shown
limited appetite for sticking to either the letter or spirit of the
agreement with MDC factions. He tried to sneak in more ministers than the
agreement allowed, feigning embarrassment when this failed. He was so
"embarrassed" that he tried the same trick a few days later with the
swearing in of deputy ministers. This time he got away with it. Zimbabwe now
has a bloated 71-strong cabinet it can ill afford.


Mugabe has unilaterally appointed all permanent secretaries, filled his
cabinet with the tainted old guard and left political activists in jail. The
budget and monetary policy statement were issued even as discussions were
still under way on the unity government, resulting in uncertainty about
economic policy at a time when there needs to be clarity, particularly given
requests for hefty aid packages.


Many Zimbabweans believe the MDC has been set up to fail by being given the
most difficult cabinet portfolios, notably finance. With Mugabe and a slew
of corrupt and inefficient ministers playing key roles in the new
government, it would seem to be a poisoned chalice for the MDC.


The international community has been asked to step up to the plate on the
back of SADC's efforts. It is right that they should back the new government's
call for healing through assistance and development. Current sanctions in
place will not preclude this. Recovery is not dependent on the lifting of
all sanctions.


Zanu (PF) needs to earn the lifting of sanctions against its members by
showing a real commitment to the reconstruction process, rather than
continuing with its current grudging participation and showing a real
tendency to fall back on its old ways.




Games is CE of Africa @ Work, a research and consulting company.

Gono diverts funds to ZANU (PF)

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk


Monday, 02 March 2009
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor Gideon Gono has once again diverted
millions of United States dollars that were meant for civil servants to pay
Zanu-PF workers and militia. According to sources at the RBZ and in Zanu-PF,
Gono has directed that selected Zanu-PF members and employees be given
US$100 vouchers.
Investigations by the ZimEye showed that Zanu-PF militia received the
US$100 vouchers this week.
The government says vouchers are redeemable at banks but the abuse of
funds has caused a shortage of foreign currency in the financial
institutions.
Sources said the vouchers were handed over on Monday and came as a
surprise to most of the unsuspecting Zanu-PF supporters.
One of the beneficiaries of Gono's misappropriation of funds who only
identified himself as Tafara said he was greatly surprised to be paid
"without doing anything."
He revealed that a group of his party members were summoned to the
Bulawayo provincial offices - Davies Hall to collect the vouchers.
"We don't even know why we were given the US$100. We were told to take
the money without asking questions," said Tafara.
Highly placed sources said Gono was given instructions by President
Robert Mugabe to "also give out payouts to party members and workers as a
way of keeping support."
The sources added that Zanu-PF was deserted by workers who quit over
unpaid salaries stretching for a year.
"If you visit Zanu-PF offices, you will find out that there are no
workers anymore. The majority left due to unpaid salaries. The party is
broke and Gono is used to fund everything," noted the source.
The government through the new Finance Minister recently paid US$100
to civil servants but Zanu-PF took advantage of the funds which were donated
by well wishers, according to the source.
International donors have called for the sacking of Gono if they are
to release financial aid to Zimbabwe.
Gono is said to be Mugabe's financial manager after he funded the
US$92 000 lavish holiday in the Far East early this year.
The central bank boss is also believed to be the worst since he looped
off a total of 25 zeros to the currency during his tenure.
The MDC has fiercely contested Gono's reappointment saying it was a
gross violation of the Global Peace Agreement.

ZimEye

Fighting for the future - Gono v Biti & Mutambara escalates into Mugabe v Mutambara fight

http://www.zimbabwejournalists.com

2nd Mar 2009 02:20 GMT


By Mutumwa Mawere

At his 85th birthday party hosted by ZANU-PF supporters, President Mugabe
explained that the Global Political Agreement (GPA) had given birth to an
inclusive government and not a government of national unity.

This distinction is significant because President Mugabe holds the view that
he is still in control as he holds executive authority and the
constitutional amendment simply did not change the status quo ante rather
all it did was to assign cabinet responsibilities on party lines.

An inclusive government as it is now evident was never meant according to
President Mugabe to allow for the sharing of executive authority and seems
surprised that the Prime Minister and his Deputy appear to have
misunderstood the true construction of the deal.

The President was quick to allay any fears that ZANU-PF was no longer in
power by clarifying that all that has happened is the assimilation of MDC
members as his subordinates in cabinet but with the President at the top,
followed by the two Vice Presidents from ZANU-PF, then the Prime Minister
and the two deputy Prime Ministers.

Although President Mugabe does concede that the inclusive government was a
consequence of the results of the vote, he is quite pleased with the
outcome, as to him it has not dented his power and authority to continue to
decide on the future of the country.

So when Hon. Biti, Minister of Finance, said on 17 February that changes
would be effected to Chinamasa's budget followed by Deputy Prime Minister,
Hon. Mutambara, on 19 February when he told a business forum in Harare that
Gono's monetary measures would be reversed and they should, therefore, not
base their planning on Chinamasa and Gono's statements; it was predictable
that Gono would react in the manner he did on 20 February.

In agreeing to the GPA, ZANU-PF was careful to ensure that no language in
the agreement would put any blame for the state of the economy on President
Mugabe and his administration. By pushing for the inclusion of the need to
remove sanctions, it was obvious that the inclusive government would have a
difficult task to deal with the real challenges facing the country.

Gono is at one with President Mugabe in holding the view that targeted
sanctions are solely responsible for the perilous state of the economy and,
therefore, all the measures that have been put in place must be evaluated in
context. Gono believes that he has done a sterling job against the odds and
should be congratulated rather than being ridiculed.

By recognizing a causal link between targeted sanctions, land reform and the
economic meltdown, the GPA has provided ammunition to ZANU-PF to argue that
the only value of the MDC in the inclusive government would be in the
context of the removal of sanctions and resource mobilization rather than in
policy making.

President Mugabe has yet to be convinced that Mutambara and Biti are mature
and smart enough to understand how to administer a post-colonial economy. He
believes that his administration is best equipped to address the challenges
and secure the future. He sees no problem in accepting new ideas as long as
it is understood that the prosecution of the national democratic revolution
can only succeed if it is controlled by tried and tested revolutionaries.

Gono's response was predictable as was President Mugabe's comments on
Mutambara. He made the point that the reported nullification of his
statement had unfortunately unsettled the market at a time when the country
should be moving forward. He also raised the issue of legitimacy
particularly in respect of Biti and Mutambara's authority to make the
pronouncements they made when it should be clear to all that the only boss
in town is President Mugabe.

It is significant that Gono said: "As a nation, let us, therefore,
discourage the temptation of deliberately causing disruptive confusions
through breaking of the law, or inadvertent abuse of our various standings
in society." Gono's interpretation of the provisions of the GPA is similar
to President Mugabe's. He remains in charge of the central bank in as much
as President Mugabe remains in charge of the state.

There is no doubt that Gono's response was canvassed and authorized by his
principal, President Mugabe. Gono is a crafty operator and any move that he
makes is never accidental. He has managed to eliminate his adversaries with
relative ease in previous disputes but now he appears to have gotten his
match in Biti and Mutambara.

Both Gono and President Mugabe may not be fully aware of the implications of
the GPA on real executive power. President Mugabe has no power to remove
both the Tsvangirai and Mutambara. The three are together as a consequence
of a contract and, therefore, President Mugabe's understanding of the
distribution of executive power is clearly at variance with the new
constitutional order.

Mugabe, Mutambara and Tsvangirai are principals and their power and
authority is derived from the people of Zimbabwe who voted. It would be
inconsistent for President Mugabe to accept that ZANU-PF did not do well in
the elections and still hold the view that nothing has changed.

The inclusive government must at the very minimum be premised on shared
power rather than on assimilation. The debate about the country's future has
to begin by accepting the urgency of acting now. It is also critical that a
proper appreciation is made of the fact that the inclusive government is
real and has significantly reduced the President's executive authority. He
simply cannot have his way without consultation and the new constitutional
order recognizes the need for such consultation.

It was never going to be easy for President Mugabe to adjust to this new
constitutional order after 29 years of uninterrupted hegemony on the state.
It is evident that even Gono has not fully digested the effect of the GPA on
governance and the need for transparency.

For people who know how Gono operates, it was not surprising that he would
use his media connections to extract a response from President Mugabe to
Mutambara's comments. President Mugabe's characterization of Mutambara as an
emotional person with limited experience in government was predictable.
President Mugabe took the criticism of Gono by Biti and Mutambara personally
and his expectation is that such criticisms must not be ventilated in
public. It is unheard of for a ZANU-PF cabinet minister to criticize any
government policy in public.

Just to demonstrate that the winds of change have touched Zimbabwe,
Mutambara issued a statement saying that he did not regret any statements
that he made on the current monetary policy and the national budget.
Mutambara also said: "When President Robert Mugabe made reference to
Professor Mutambara on ZTV, with regards to the above issues, he was
expressing his own personal views as a Citizen of Zimbabwe." I am sure that
Mugabe does not believe that he is just another citizen of Zimbabwe and the
mere fact that Mutambara has not been arrested for such utterance just goes
to show that change has visited Zimbabwe.

By disagreeing publicly with Mugabe, Mutambara has opened a new chapter in
Zimbabwean politics. What is significant about Mutambara's statement is that
he stressed the importance for Zimbabweans to make the distinction between
Mugabe's personal views and public policy suggesting that the future of the
country is a collective and shared responsibility. Mutambara is not just a
Deputy Prime Minister but also a key stakeholder that cannot be simply
ridiculed as a small boy.

Suggestions have been made that the new Ministers need to go for an
induction because it is felt by the incumbents that they have no
understanding of how government works. In making the suggestion, it is
implicit that ZANU-PF has not accepted that there may be a connection
between the current state of the economy and mismanagement as well as
corruption.

It would be tragic if Zimbabweans saw the conflict between Biti/Mutambara
and Gono on the one hand and between Mugabe and Mutambara/Tsvangirai as
personal and not national. Mugabe does not believe that criticisms about his
administration are warranted. He also believes that Gono is a revolutionary
cadre who is dependable and consistent.

It is now up to all who have evidence about Gono's corruption to arm
Tsvangirai and his team in their fight against the people who mistakenly
believe that no change is change and the country will be able to access
resources without changing the faces and the bad policies that have
contributed to the destruction of the economy. It is clear that SADC will
not be able to provide the required funding to Zimbabwe and it leaves the
future of Zimbabwe in the hands of the West without whose support the
country's prospects are gloomy.

Election candidate now destitute refugee

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=12610


March 1, 2009


By Mxolisi Ncube

JOHANNESBURG - Noel Muguti (33) will forever rue the day he decided to
become a politician in politically turbulent Zimbabwe.

He stood as a Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) candidate in
parliamentary elections held in March 2008 and was widowed and nearly lost
his own life soon after he lost the poll to his Zanu-PF rival.

Now a destitute political refugee at the Central Methodist Mission in
Johannesburg, where he arrived last July, Muguti struggles to survive.

Muguti contested in the March 29 parliamentary elections in the
Gokwe-Nembudziya Constituency. He won only 1 071 votes, coming out third
after the incumbent, Flora Bhuka, the Zanu-PF candidate, and Kizito Mbiriza
representing the MDC's smaller faction led by Arthur Mutambara, who polled 8
650 and 1 396 votes, respectively.

Bhuka the former Minister of State for State Enterprises became Minister of
State in Vice-President Joseph Msika's Office in the government of national
unity.

Meanwhile, Muguti, now dejected and frail-looking, told The Zimbabwe Times
in an interview in Braamfontein, central Johannesburg, Friday that he now
rues the day he decided to run for a seat in the august House. Political
violence at the hands of President Robert Mugabe's Zanu-PF party has left
him not only widowed, but also semi-disabled as well as a homeless destitute
living on alms in a foreign land.

"Since my participation in that election, my life has been ruined," said
Muguti, a victim of both Zanu-PF violence and apparent neglect by the party
he campaigned to represent in Parliament.

Muguti was one of the worst affected victims of the political violence that
rocked rural Zimbabwe in the wake of the announcement of the March 29
election results. Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC defeated Zanu-PF, while Tsvangirai
himself defeated Mugabe in the presidential election.

Zanu-PF responded to the humiliating defeat - the party's and Mugabe's first
since independence in 1980 - by unleashing an orgy of retributive violence
against the opposition. They dubbed it "Operation Mavhotera Papi? (For whom
did you vote?). By the time the widespred violence subsided after the June
27 poll, which Mugabe won without challenge after Tsvangirai withdrew,
citing violence, the MDC says almost 200 of its supporters had been killed
nationwide. Thousands more were maimed or rendered homeless, or both as in
the case of Muguti.

"Gokwe-Nembudziya was among the first area it "Operation Mavhotera Papi?
(For whom did you vote?). By the time it subsided after Mugabe claimed
victory in the June 27 poll, which Mugabe won without challenge after
Tsvangirai withdrew, citing violence, the MDC says almost 200 of its
supporters had been killed nationwide. Thousands more were maimed or
rendered homeless, or both as in the case of Muguti.

"Gokwe-Nembudziya was among the first areas to witness the violence," says
Muguti. "Many houses were burnt and several people were abducted and
tortured."

On April 26 his then 21-year-old wife, Nashawu Mpofu, was abducted from
their homestead in the Tiki area of the constituency. She was also an active
member of the MDC. Witnesses said her abductors were six armed men who were
driving a white Mitsubishi pick-up truck bearing no number plates.

Mpofu has not been seen ever since. Muguti believes that she was killed,
probably in cold blood, by her abductors.

"I was away, campaigning in Tenda, about 35 km from my home, for the MDC
president in the run-off," said Muguti. "I was only told of the abduction by
a party youth member about three days later

"The youth said that she was taken away at about 3 pm and everyone in the
village saw the abductors, who were in the company of known Zanu-PF members
in our area.

"When I arrived home, I found that my whole homestead had been razed to the
ground. My two children, then aged 9 and six years, were staying with
neighbours. They had been left alone after their mother's abduction."

The former MDC candidate says that he reported his wife as missing at
Nembudziya Police Station on April 29.

"That report yielded nothing," says Muguti. "The police did not even quiz
the known Zanu-PF supporters who pointed my wife out to the abductors."

Muguti says as he conducted what turned out to be a vain search for his
wife, he was himself abducted on more than three occasions. He says he was
tortured at various bases by suspected state security agents, war veterans
and Zanu-PF supporters.

"I was ambushed, abducted and tortured at various places on more than three
occasions, being left for dead on once occasion," he said.

"The worst was to come on June 22, when I was ambushed by about 40 people
during the night in the Made area. I was assaulted with clenched fists and
sticks until I lost consciousness.

"When I gained consciousness, I discovered that I had been dragged into the
bush, where I was left for dead."

The elections were held five days later. By then Muguti had been taken to
Harare where he was admitted to hospital. It was discovered that he had
sustained broken ribs and serious head injuries.

When he was well enough to do so, Muguti says he fled Zimbabwe for
Johannesburg in July 2008, with the assistance of the MDC. Both his life and
his health have continued to deteriorate, however.

"I lost all my documents when my homestead was burned, meaning that I cannot
be employed in any meaningful job," he said.

"In any case, after all that torture, I cannot do any demanding work like in
construction."

Many Zimbabweans are now employed in the construction industry in South
Africa.

Muguti says the MDC helped him to move to South Africa.

"They assisted me to come here, and on arrival I was given R1000 by party
treasurer, Roy Bennett, and that was it," he said.

Due to the high number of desperate Zimbabweans seeking help, the Central
Methodist Mission in Johannesburg is said to have begun to limit the amount
of food that is allocated to established refugees, to focus mainly on new
arrivals.

"That means that some of us who have been here for long have to look
elsewhere for food," said Muguti. "I also suffer from diabetes, and in my
condition I am not supposed to miss a meal.

"At times I go out with some of my colleagues to the busy Park Station,
where we eat from the dust bins. The recent outbreak of cholera has left us
with very limited choices, however."

Amendment No. 19 Act differs from Bill

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=12620


March 1, 2009


Prepared by Veritas

THE Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 19) Act [No. 1 of 2009] was
gazetted late on Friday, February 13, some time after the swearing-in of the
Ministers of the inclusive government that afternoon.

The Act came into operation immediately. The Bill for the Act was passed by
both Houses of Parliament on February 5 and the President's assent was given
on February 10.

The gazetted Act differs considerably from the Bill that was gazetted on
December 12 and presented to the House of Assembly on February 5. The last
18 pages of the Bill, containing the proposed new Schedules 9, 10 and 11 of
the Constitution, are omitted, leaving only Schedule 8 in the Act.

Schedule 8, the surviving Schedule, contains Article 20 of the Inter-party
Political Agreement spelling out how the Inclusive Government will function.

As the Bill was not amended by either House, these omissions in the Act have
raised questions.  The staff of Parliament offered the explanation that the
last three Schedules were included in the Bill as "a matter of public
interest" and not intended as part of the Bill to be passed.

This is an unprecedented way of presenting a Bill and several Members of
Parliament have stated that they did not realise that they were not being
called upon to pass the entire Bill as printed. It is difficult to avoid the
comment that, on so important a matter, greater clarity was essential.

The gazetted Bill's Schedule 10 incorporated Article 6 of the IPA that lays
down the procedure and time-frame for the process of producing a proposed
new Constitution before the end of 2010.  Its omission from the Act is
significant as now the process is not written into the Constitution.
Keeping this Schedule in the Act would have made sticking to the procedure
and the time-frame constitutionally and legally obligatory.

Having been left out of the Act, the Constitution-making process becomes
something the political parties can agree to change, to depart from, to
delay, as it suits them.

There are other implications of the failure to incorporate the new
Constitution-making timeframe into the present Constitution.  It has been
widely assumed that a new Constitution would be soon followed by new
elections.  Any delays in adopting a new Constitution would extend the term
of this "transitional" inclusive government.

(Veritas is a not-for-profit organisation set up to promote peace, social
justice and gender equality through lobbying, networking and informed
participation in decision-making processes affecting the lives of the people
of Zimbabwe. Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but
cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied.)

Bill Watch 7 of 1st March 2009 [Parliamentary Agenda]

Communiqué on the Establishment of a Civil Society Monitoring Mechanism

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk


Monday, 02 March 2009

Relating to the Implementation of the Interparty Political Agreement

We, representatives of civil society organizations, meeting in Harare
on the 25th February 2009:

Acknowledging the signing of the Interparty Political Agreement (IPA)
on the 15th September 2008 and the effective commencement of its
implementation by the participating political parties on the 30th January
2009.

Noting the continued humanitarian, social, and economic crises which
the country continues to face and needs to address urgently,
Deeply concerned at the continued assault on the fundamental rights
and freedoms of the people of Zimbabwe, in particular human rights defenders
and legitimate political activists,
In solidarity with our colleagues and others who remain unjustly
incarcerated at various prisons, remand facilities and hospitals around
Zimbabwe,
Guided by our earlier commitment and collective views as espoused in
the Peoples' Charter developed through national consultative processes,
Mindful of the need for any legitimate government to pursue its
mandate through inclusive, transparent, people-driven and participatory
processes in order to ensure a swift return to democracy, good governance
and the Rule of Law,
Further mindful of civil society's critical role and responsibility in
scrutinizing politicians and political processes, and holding them to
account, in order to maintain its watchdog role and moral authority,
Noting that in the event of the political deadlock necessitating
dissolution of the agreement, fresh elections should be conducted under an
internationally and regionally acceptable framework and supervisory
missions,
Observing that the ordinary voices and views of the people of Zimbabwe
have not been heard or acknowledged in the IPA and that ownership,
monitoring and enforcement of the IPA is currently the exclusive reserve of
political parties, state authorities and regional and international
political organs who are not accountable to the people of Zimbabwe,

Now hereby resolve to:

  1.. Immediately establish an independent Civil Society Monitoring
Mechanism which will, through shared and agreed benchmarks, focus on
monitoring and assessing the adherence to and implementation of the
Interparty Political Agreement (IPA) by those bound to its provisions
through the work of five (5) main Thematic Clusters, namely:
  a.. Economy and Development (incorporating Economic Recovery, Land,
Humanitarian and Food Assistance)
  b.. Constitutional Reform Process
  c.. Political Transition and Justice (incorporating Equality,
National Healing, Cohesion and Unity, Traditional Leaders, and National
Youth Programme)
  d.. Institutional Transformation (incorporating Rule of Law, State
Institutions, Legislative Agenda, the Media and National Institutions)
  e.. Respect for Human Rights and Operating Environment
(incorporating Rule of Law, Freedom of Expression and Communication, Free
Political Activity, Freedom of Assembly and Association, and Security of
Persons and Prevention of Violence)

2.Ensure that progress on critical issues which have been
overlooked or remain unaddressed within the ambit of the IPA is also
monitored; more particularly in relation to:-


  a.. Reform and accountability of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in
terms of its mandate under the law
  b.. Economic Crimes and Impunity
  c.. Reform of the Education Sector
  d.. Reform of the Health Sector
  e.. Security Sector Reform
  f.. Judicial Reform
  g.. Electoral Reform
  h.. Local Government Reform

3.Produce Monthly Monitoring Reports which will be published,
publicized, widely disseminated, simplified and translated, in order to
allow the people of Zimbabwe to understand and discuss political processes,
actions and decisions taken on their behalf and which have an impact on
their lives, in order that they can demand accountability in an informed
manner where they are of the opinion that their political representatives
are failing to comply with the provisions they agreed to under the IPA.
4.Engage the Joint Monitoring and Implementation Committee
(JOMIC) and all or any other responsible authorities and guarantors of the
IPA on the basis of the findings and recommendations of the Monthly
Monitoring Reports.
5.So contribute to a new culture of transparency, scrutiny and
accountability of all public processes taken on behalf of the people of
Zimbabwe by the political parties who purport to govern on their behalf.

Representatives of the civil society further clarify that this
process, far from being an attempt to undermine political processes and
agreements, is one which it has a responsibility to undertake as part of its
independent watchdog role, and one which it will not hesitate to carry out
to the best of its ability in line with the affirmations set out herein.

Thus done at Harare, Zimbabwe, this 25th day of February 2009.

PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

Bulawayo Agenda (BA)

Christian Alliance (CA)

Counseling Services Unit (CSU)

Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition (CZC)

General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union( GAPWUZ)

Legal Resources Foundation (LRF)

Media Institute of Southern Africa - Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe)

Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)

National Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (NANGO)

Progressive Teachers Association of Zimbabwe (PTUZ)

Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU)

Save Zimbabwe Campaign (SZC)

Veritas

Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ)

Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights (ZADHR)

Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (Zimcodd)

Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN)

Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)

Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum (ZHRF)

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)

Zimbabwe National Students Union (Zinasu)

Zimbabwe Young Women's Network for Peace Building (ZYWNP)

Mugabe must go

http://www.businessday.co.za/

 02 March 2009


IT IS way too early to give Zimbabwe any money. Aid, yes. Zimbabweans are
sick and hungry and they need help. If that country's thuggish president and
his party could be persuaded to allow foreign aid agencies in to help feed
and treat his citizens that would be wonderful. In all probability though,
he would try to use his people's plight to blackmail the rest of the world
into financing him out of the jam he has created for himself.




A Southern African Development Community (SADC) committee heard at the
weekend that Zimbabwe needs $2bn now to stabilise its economy. Details are
thin on the ground and "stabilisation" may simply mean paying the salaries
of restive soldiers or public servants. It would not be money well spent.




An SADC extraordinary summit is now likely to be held to discuss financing
the reconstruction of Zimbabwe ahead of the April 2 G-20 summit in the UK.
That's the meeting SA would hope to use to make a pitch for Zimbabwe but it's
likely any appeal will fall on deaf ears.




And who would be surprised? Robert Mugabe and his cronies are thieves and
they would steal as much as they could of any funding that finds its way
into the country. Just this weekend Mugabe and friends were celebrating his
85th birthday with a lavish bash that cost more than R1m by reliable
estimates. At that party the mad old man repeatedly warned that farm
invasions would continue and that Zimbabwe would continue to take majority
stakes for locals in all companies operating in the country.




And he wants the world to fund this nonsense? Well, perhaps not. He has
grown rich on Zimbabwe's misery and now, apparently, owns a house in Hong
Kong! A real open economy with a central bank he could not control is the
last thing he wants. No, the begging bowl is being held out by the South
African Foreign Minister, Nkosa zana Dlamini-Zuma, who says she is certain
that any money raised would really be spent on what it was intended for. We
wish it were so ma'am, but you know and we know there's no guarantee of
that.




And guarantees are the very least funders should ask for now, however
patronising that may sound. Zimbabwe is not ruled by a trustworthy person.




This may all sound rather harsh on Morgan Tsvangirai, the opposition leader
who is now prime minister, thanks to the Zimbabwe unity deal brokered by
Thabo Mbeki on behalf of the SADC. We have real sympathy for Tsvangirai.
Having been made PM he is being hung out to dry by the SADC. SA doesn't rate
him and has not much time for him.




But while he has no option but to make an effort to right the ship he has
inherited, that doesn't mean we all shower him with money. First, it isn't
clear he'd get to control it. Second, we'd like to see his plan. What's it
say? Hell, it's going to be our money Pretoria hands over.




It is very important in all of this that SA's government keeps taxpayers
informed about what it is doing with our money in Zimbabwe. The more we
understand, the easier spending there will become.




We need, whatever the G-20 and others might do, to appreciate that SA cannot
sit by now that the government it created is in place in Harare. But we
cannot simply "give" the government there a billion or two rands. It would
be a good thing, for instance, to inject hard currency into that country by
encouraging, by way of a modest cash inducement, the many migrants and
refugees in this country to go home. The government may also consider
exacting some form of ownership of the Zimbabwean assets our rands repair or
rebuild.




It is obvious Mugabe should go. He just has to go. Listening to him speak it
is hard not to conclude that he is already senile. His fear is that if he
stops protecting the senior security officers who surround him, they will
kill him. SA's job should be to reassure him that if he does do the right
thing and steps away from active politics, we will protect him.




Something on a large scale will have to be done to loosen the purse strings
of the west. They are already battered by their own economic storms. Perhaps
a currency reform modelled on the German one after the last world war would
do the trick. It would certainly inconvenience the ruling elite.
Five-trillion current Zim dollars for one New Dollar would hurt some of the
thieves nicely and there's nothing like real money to get a broken nation
fired up and working hard again. Ask the Germans.




It's crunch time. After all the negotiating, delays and accusations,
Zimbabwe now has a government of national unity and just wants the world to
cough up a bit and help. But it can't happen, because the one thing that
should have been done was never done, particularly by Mbeki. He didn't, or
couldn't, get rid of Mugabe. So the stench remains.

Future of white people in Zimbabwe

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=12631

March 1, 2009


By Jane Madembo

IN 1980, soon after Zimbabwe gained independence, many white Zimbabweans
packed their bags and emigrated to such places as South Africa, Australia,
New Zealand, Britain and other parts of the world.

Many Rhodesians left because they could not stand a life under black rule.

President Mugabe had reassured the white population that they were all
welcome to remain in Zimbabwe and that no harm would befall them. The war
was over.  Some stayed because of economic interests. Others had nowhere to
go. The rest I believe stayed because they simply loved Zimbabwe and
considered it their home.

Mugabe did not keep his promise, however. Sometime before the bloody farm
invasions of 2000, Mugabe's rhetoric changed. He started to castigate the
whites in newspaper interviews and on television. I remember thinking how
bad I would feel if I was a white Zimbabwean listening to that kind scolding
every day.

I don't know Roy Bennett personally, but I have an admiration for the man.
Here is a white Zimbabwean who takes the trouble to learn the indigenous
Shona language. He was elected to Parliament by mostly black voters and even
defeated a Zanu-PF candidate. This made me think that there must be certain
good qualities about the man. Otherwise those people of Chimanimani would
not have voted for him.

I grew up in Zimbabwe in the seventies. I never had any contact with white
people (apart from our Catholic priests and nuns) until I was about twenty
one.

I was an inexperienced twenty-year old without a college degree so it was
very difficult to get my first job. My parents sent me to a Deputy Minister
in Mugabe's government, a distant relation from our area. This man had spent
a decade abroad during the war of liberation. He tried to exploit me without
success.

He spends most of his time sitting in the office just talking to people.

I later found a job through a certain kind man. It was through that job that
I met Liz Rautenbach, a wonderful white woman, who was a customer. When I
told Liz that I was looking for another job, she found me one at Kalamazoo,
the company where she was employed.

Six months later they promoted me to production supervisor.

Liz died of migraine headache soon afterwards. At work I found out, to my
surprise, that most of my bosses and white colleagues were very nice and
honest people. They, however, had one common problem.

If you ran into them in town over the weekend when they were in the company
of their white friends, they had an attitude. They invariably pretended not
to see you. This attitude had more to do with how they would be perceived in
their community if they were seen talking to blacks on the street than it
was to do with who they were as people.

My white neighbor, who openly socialized with black people, was alienated by
the white community. The only white person who came over to her house was an
old man. Then there was a single white man who had a mixed race child.
Although he had a few black friends, he too was shunned by the white
community.

A few years ago as, I was planning to move to the United States, I needed a
supporting letter for my visa application. I approached a couple of
prominent black people I knew for help. They would not help. Even though it
was seven years since I had left Kalamazoo, I went back and asked one of my
former bosses, Nigel Haig, for help.  He wrote the required support letter
and soon afterwards I left Zimbabwe.

When I visited on vacation the following year, I looked him up. I had
brought a bottle of whisky for him. I tried to make conversation about life
abroad and my studies, but it was awkward because we had never engaged in
chit-chat before.

Near our village lived a white farmer whose workers and the local community
nicknamed Siyaso. Siyaso spoke fluent Shona and enjoyed a cordial
relationship with the community around him. As far as I could see, the
villagers were not racist. Some did not even regard Siyaso as white person.
They regarded him as an elder, whom they respected and often times he was
part of a group of village elders who helped resolve disputes among
villagers.

He knew and understood our customs. The villagers would say of him,
"Watinoswera tichimwa sevhenidheizi naye uyo, haasi murungu uyu."  (We drink
traditional beer with him all the time; he is not really a white man.)
Siyaso had lived on the farm all his life. He knew no other life.  A couple
of times on a visit to my parents he helped pull my car out after it got
stuck in the mud.

When war veterans Zanu-PF militia arrived to take his farm, I heard that he
told them that he had offered part of the land to the surrounding villagers
in return of keeping his home and a small piece of land for his own needs.
Despite protests from the villagers, the militiamen would not relent. They
gave the old man forty eight hours to leave the farm.

Frail and already in his mid-seventies Siyaso collapsed and was taken to
hospital.

Siyaso failed to meet the 48-hour deadline. He cheated the war vets. He died
peacefully in his sleep.

President Mugabe keeps repeating that the white farmers must vacate their
farms. He does not offer any solution as to where they should go. Homeless
and landless Zimbabweans regardless of the color, have to be allocated
pieces of land to build a home and to farm, if they wish.

Many white Zimbabwean citizens, people like Bennett love Zimbabwe and given
a chance can contribute to its development, as they have done in the past.
They cannot be made to pay for the mistakes of their ancestors. They have
the same rights as any other Zimbabweans. To deny them those rights is a
great injustice.

Mugabe is quick to praise and parade white people like Kirsty Coventry, the
Zimbabwean-born Olympic swimming champion. Bennett, the currently jailed MDC
treasurer and deputy of Minister of Agriculture-designate, and Coventry are
two people Zimbabwe should be proud of. Coventry is serving her country
through personal achievement and Bennett through public service.

Mugabe sees Bennett as a residue of the colonial past, yet it is Mugabe
himself who refuses to let go of the past. The truth is that for Zimbabwe to
develop and progress, it must open its arms and embrace all of its citizens,
regardless of their color.

White commercial farmers such as Bennett are as valuable as citizens as the
black teachers, doctors, nurses and other professional whom Mugabe and
Zanu-PF have driven out of the country of their birth.

If Bennett has, indeed, committed a crime, as is being alleged, he should
quickly be put on trial. Only that will dispel any perception of political
victimisation in his treatment.

Lessons from French history

http://www.gulfnews.com

Editorial


Gulf News
Published: March 01, 2009, 23:02


Before she met her grisly end - overthrown, imprisoned and
then beheaded - French queen Marie-Antoinette is widely believed to have
commented: "Let them eat cake", when told that the hungry, disaffected
people of France had no bread to eat.

Some brave soul should have reminded Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe of this anecdote as he cut his 85th birthday cake, on
television, at a lavish celebration thrown for him by his political party,
this weekend.

The people of Zimbabwe are disaffected, starving and dying
of cholera. Their only hope is that the government of national unity, formed
recently, can create enough political stability to get the economy started
and win international donor support.

But, at his celebration Mugabe made it clear that he
intends to hold onto power, defy the new government and continue with
policies that have ruined his country. It is time for the people of Zimbabwe
to take a lesson from the history books.