http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=23403
October 2,
2009
By Our Correspondent
HARARE - The announcement of
the unilateral appointment of new board members
for the Broadcasting
Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ) and other statutory bodies
by the Ministry of
Media, Information and Publicity represents yet another
threat to the spirit
and letter of the inclusive government, the MDC said.
The Minister of
Media and Information, Webster Shamu made a surprise
announcement of new
appointments to the boards of all government-controlled
media
establishments, including Zimbabwe Newspapers and Zimbabwe
Broadcasting
Holdings, through which the government effectively controls the
dissemination of information to the public.
The statement says
particularly ominous is the appointment by Shamu of many
retired members of
the military, nearly all with no known previous links to
the media. The
appointments appear to have been made without consulting
Zanu-PF's two MDC
partners in the government of national unity (GNU).
"Information Minister
Webster Shamu has simply usurped the powers of
Parliament which had begun to
constitute independent commissions and bodies,
including the Broadcasting
Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ), Prime Minister
Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC said in
a statement released Friday. "He has become
the implementing arm of a
shameful and sinister Zanu-PF agenda to populate
strategic national
institutions with Zanu PF apologists.
"The biggest threat to democracy is
not only the unilateral appointments,
but the unilateral decision to recycle
a celebrated media hangman such as
Tafataona Mahoso by making him chairman
of BAZ. The media graveyard has five
newspapers and two radio stations which
Mahoso banned, closed or were bombed
during his tenure as chairman of the
Media and Information Commission."
While the MDC has focused on the
appointments to BAZ and Mahoso, in
particular, in practical terms it is the
boards of Zimpapers and the ZBH,
which the two organisations that shoulder
the burden of disseminating
government's propaganda, that are crucial. No
less than the former Principal
Secretary to the President and Cabinet has
been appointed chairman of the
board of Zimpapers. His board will preside
over a string of influential
newspapers that are controlled by the
government.
The government is clearly tightening screws on the media
ahead of elections
in 2011 at a time when independent newspapers such as the
once popular Daily
News remain unregistered and, therefore,
inoperative.
"Mahoso failed dismally during the interviews to select
members of the
Zimbabwe Media Commission," the MDC statement said.
"Zanu-PF's penchant to
reward failure is well recorded, but this time they
have chosen to beat
their own record. Mahoso's legacy at the MIC makes a
loud statement that he
is unfit to head a strategic national institution in
the new dispensation of
inclusivity and tolerance.
"Yesterday's
enemies of press freedom cannot be today's allies of a plural
and diverse
media which Zimbabweans want. Sunset characters cannot be part
of the new
dawn of democracy and media freedom."
Shamu had appointed nine members
from the military into six statutory
bodies, the statement says. This
militarisation of civilian institutions
sent wrong and dangerous signals
nationally, regionally and in the broader
international
community.
"Soldiers are square pegs in a round hole when they are
appointed into
civilian bodies such as the Broadcasting Authority of
Zimbabwe or the board
of directors of Kingstons. The best place for our
gallant sons and daughters
who save as soldiers is in military barracks, not
the boardroom of a civic
national body."
The MDC says Shamu's new
appointments are, therefore, a threat to the
inclusive government and the
GPA.
"They represent everything that is wrong with the inclusive
government where
one party is hell-bent on betraying its own signature by
failing to adhere
to agreements and common sense," the statement
says.
"Zimbabweans want real change. They do not deserve the recycling of
old
characters with a perforated past and a chequered history such as
Tafataona
Mahoso. They want hope, democracy, prosperity, freedom, dignity,
security."
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Tichaona
Sibanda
2 October 2009
The formation of the inclusive government led
many to believe the country
was moving towards greater openness and
democracy.
But Thursday's appointment of new board members to parastatals
under the
Information and Publicity Ministry now clearly indicates that the
space for
divergent political views in Zimbabwe will further shrink under
Minister
Webster Shamu's watch.
Veteran journalist Makusha Mugabe
said by appointing eight retired military
officials to the parastatal
boards, Shamu was allowing the military to take
on civilian functions that
were previously off-limits. The parastatal boards
that Shamu has filled with
former soldiers are; the Broadcasting Authority
of Zimbabwe (BAZ), Zimbabwe
Broadcasting Holdings (ZBH), Zimbabwe Newspapers
Group, New Ziana,
Transmedia and Kingstons.
'The military now has more of a role in the
information and publicity
ministry than before. This is yet another
indication that Shamu poses a
growing threat to media reforms in the
country,' Makusha Mugabe said.
Analysts say the military has in the last
decade expanded and consolidated
its position in both the politics and the
economy of the country. The army
now virtually controls the major
institutions of the state and formal policy
making structures and processes
of the country.
Journalists interviewed by SW Radio Africa said the most
important challenge
for the country's inclusive government was how it deals
with the military in
the whole quest for political and economic reforms and
stabilisation.
'If we learn anything from history, it should be that bad
times always
return. On Thursday, we saw the anti-democratic trend returning
to haunt
pro-democracy forces,' George Deda, an exiled Zimbabwean journalist
said.
He added that the military is now deeply engrained in the political
and
economical affairs of the country that the appointments are completely
retrogressive, after the slight hope that the unity government had
brought.
The MDC on Friday released a statement castigating the
appointments. They
said the militarisation of civilian institutions sends
wrong and dangerous
signals nationally, regionally and in the broader
international community.
'The best place for our gallant sons and
daughters who serve as soldiers is
in military barracks, not the boardroom
of a civic national body,' the MDC
statement said.
But the Joint
Operations Command (a group of army, police, prisons and the
Central
Intelligence Organisation heads) meets regularly to coordinate
military and
security affairs and serving and retired military and other
security
officials have come to direct all key national and governance
issues, rather
than the cabinet.
Since 2002 the military has consistently threatened to
veto any poll result
that goes against its preferred candidate Robert Mugabe,
using the argument
that any other result would be a reversal of the gains of
liberation. Shamu's
appointment of the new media board members is yet
another giant step back
for Zimbabwe.
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Violet
Gonda
2 October 2009
The Deputy Minister of Information, Jameson Timba,
has said the media board
appointments made by Minister Webster Shamu don't
demonstrate the
seriousness that is required to move the country
forward.
Shamu announced on Wednesday the names of the individuals,
mostly ZANU PF
apologists, CIOs and military personnel, who will sit on the
media boards
for the six parastatals under his ministry. The MDC Deputy
Minister told SW
Radio Africa that he was not consulted and only heard about
the appointments
when they were announced on state television Wednesday
evening.
Timba said the appointments, especially for the Broadcasting
Authority of
Zimbabwe (BAZ) and the Zimpapers boards, are unlawful and
unprocedural and
are a threat to the letter and spirit of the Global
Political Agreement.
"From a legal point of view I have great difficulties
with the appointment
of the board of Zimpapers. It is my view that the
appointment of the board
of Zimpapers by the minister of media is unlawful.
There is no one, in my
view, with lawful authority within this government,
to appoint the board of
Zimpapers because the government of this country
does not own that public
listed company."
The Deputy Minister pointed
out there are also procedural and legal issues
around the suitability of the
BAZ board, saying the appointments are
governed by the Broadcasting Services
Act as well as constitutional
amendment 19. He said: "I am not convinced
that the procedures and processes
required by these two legal instruments
were followed to the letter and
spirit. Therefore their validity is in
question."
Timba said these latest developments are a threat to the
stability of the
new government. His sentiments were also echoed by the MDC
party who issued
a statement on Friday saying: "Shamu's unilateral
appointments are a threat
to the inclusive government."
According to
the MDC, the Minister simply usurped the powers of Parliament
which had
begun to constitute independent commissions and bodies, including
the
broadcasting authority. "He has become the implementing arm of a
shameful
and sinister Zanu PF agenda to populate strategic national
institutions with
Zanu PF apologists," read the statement.
One of those recycled is Dr
Tafataona Mahoso, the media 'hangman' who had a
chequered history of
terrorising journalists and shutting down newspapers,
when he was chairman
of the now defunct Media and Information Commission. He
is now the new the
BAZ chairman.
The MDC said: "Mahoso's legacy at the MIC makes a loud
statement that he is
unfit to head a strategic national institution in the
new dispensation of
inclusivity and tolerance. Yesterday's enemies of press
freedom cannot be
today's allies of a plural and diverse media which
Zimbabweans want. Sunset
characters cannot be part of the new dawn of
democracy and media freedom."
All of the six statutory bodies are also
disturbingly littered with retired
army generals, a move seen as the
militarisation of civilian institutions.
One of them is Retired Major
General Gibson Mashingaidze, who is linked to
violence. He was allegedly
deployed to Masvingo province last year to 'force'
people to the polling
stations to vote for Mugabe.
Media watchdogs MISA-Zimbabwe and the Media
Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe
say the appointments are a clear indication,
showing that ZANU PF has no
intention of media reform.
The MDC also said:
"Soldiers are square pegs in a round hole when they are
appointed into
civilian bodies such as the Broadcasting Authority of
Zimbabwe or the board
of directors of Kingstons. The best place for our
gallant sons and daughters
who save as soldiers is in military barracks, not
the boardroom of a civic
national body."
When asked what he was going to do about this issue, as
the Deputy Minister,
and whether these appointments can be reversed, Timba
merely said he will
raise the issues with the relevant authorities in
government.
http://www.sabcnews.com
October 02
2009 , 11:54:00
Thulasizwe Simelane; Zimbabwe
An
educational crisis has been averted in Zimbabwe following last
night's
decision by government to extended loans to learners who had failed
to pay
for their public examination fees.
More than half the learners in
the country failed to pay the fees,
triggering a national outcry that
prompted the intervention of Prime
Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai
says government will ensure that
every learner scheduled to write public
examinations this year does so
despite failure to pay examination fees.
About half of the learners due to
write the examinations in the country have
failed to pay the fees as
economic hardship persist.
The
Education Ministry estimates that about 40% of learners failed to
meet the
September the 25 deadline for payment. Exam fees are pegged at more
than R70
per 'O' level, and more than R140 per 'A' level subject. However,
many
parents cannot afford the fees. Last year's O and A levels exams were a
complete shambles, with results delays plunging learners into uncertainty
well into the beginning of this year.
The chaos capped what's
widely considered a wasted academic year,
which saw most schools remaining
shut for most of 2008. This is largely due
to disruptions resulting from the
political tension and violence that
characterised the two general elections,
teachers' strikes and cholera. UN
agency UNICEF recently expressed grave
concern over the plight of children
in Zimbabwe.
http://www.apanews.net
APA-Harare
(Zimbabwe) Zimbabwe's farmers have warned of a "looming disaster"
as a
funding crisis threatens to drastically slash agricultural output
during the
forthcoming farming season and condemn the country to another
year as a net
food importer, APA has learnt here.
The Commercial Farmers Union, which
represents the mainly white large-scale
growers, on Thursday said its
members were struggling to access funding from
the banking sector and were
largely unprepared for the 2009/10 farming
season due to start at the end of
October.
The farmers blamed the cash crunch on the decision by the new
coalition
government to adopt a basket of multiple currencies that replaced
the
worthless Zimbabwe dollar as legal tender.
The situation has been
compounded by the inability of the new government to
win international
financial injections which would have created liquidity
within the domestic
banking sector to enable banks to lend to farmers.
Problems for the
large-scale farmers are also worsened by the fact that they
cannot access
facilities run by non-governmental organisations and
multilateral
organisations like the World Bank which donate farm inputs to
vulnerable
groups.
The lack of funds has seen farmers planting just over 20 percent
of their
normal hectarage, an unhealthy scenario for a country where
agriculture is
the backbone of the rest of the economic sectors.
JN/nm/APA 2009-10-02
http://www.swradioafrica.com
By Lance
Guma
02 October 2009
Southern African Development Community (SADC)
Executive Secretary Tomaz
Salomão has told Newsreel that the group's troika,
which is meant to deal
with outstanding issues in Zimbabwe's unity
government, is still consulting
on a suitable date to meet. The leaders of
Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia
form the current troika, which is chaired
by Mozambican President Armando
Guebuza.
It's over a month since the DRC
SADC summit agreed to refer all outstanding
issues to the Troika of the SADC
Organ on Politics, Defence and Security
Co-operation. Responding to our
questions on the delay in dealing with
complaints raised by the MDC against
ZANU PF, Dr. Salomão said 'the parties
involved would be consulting in
October and have to agree on a date.'
MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa confirmed
to Newsreel that they had already
written a letter requesting urgent action
on the matter. He however said
they would not 'frog-march' the regional
grouping into setting up any dates
but were simply emphasizing the urgency
of the matters to be resolved. He
said the country could not move forward as
long as it had issues that
undermined the coalition. Chamisa added that the
issues they were raising
were not new ones but were part of things they
agreed with ZANU PF in the
unity deal.
The MDC are not happy with
Mugabe's unilateral appointment of the Reserve
Bank governor and Attorney
General, despite the unity agreement making it
clear such appointments have
to be made with the consent of all parties. MDC
nominated provincial
governors and ambassadors have still not been appointed
while Mugabe
continues to refuse to swear in MDC treasurer Roy Bennett as
Deputy
Agriculture Minister. ZANU PF has even tried to tamper with the
mandates of
several ministries, including attempts to hive off the
telecommunications
sector from an MDC controlled ministry.
Analysts say the composition of
the SADC troika does not hold out much hope
for the MDC. King Mswati of
Swaziland has previously traveled to Zimbabwe
and been a guest at Reserve
Bank Governor Gideon Gono's farm. Fears abound
that this will affect his
neutrality in dealing with an issue that involves
Gono. Even though
Mozambican President Guebuza succeeded Mugabe's best
friend Joachim
Chissano, the country's leadership has maintained strong ties
with ZANU PF.
Zambia remains an unknown quantity in the equation.
Newsreel is reliably
informed South African President Jacob Zuma will
continue to be involved in
the discussions, since his country is the main
power in the region that
guaranteed the deal.
http://news.yahoo.com
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AFP) - Zimbabwe's
former information minister, reputed to
be the mastermind behind Zimbabwe's
harsh media laws, has rejoined President
Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF, the party
said Friday.
Jonathan Moyo, currently Zimbabwe's sole independent
lawmaker, had been
welcomed back into the fold, said Ephraim Masawi, ZANU-PF
spokesman.
"The politburo considered the application by professor
Jonathan Moyo to
rejoin ZANU-PF which was unanimously endorsed," Masawi told
a news
conference.
Moyo is the only independent MP in Zimbabwe's
210-seat parliament where
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC) has
a razor-thin edge with 100 lawmakers to
ZANU-PF's 99. A breakaway MDC
faction holds 10 seats.
He is blamed by
critics for crafting Zimbabwe's tough media laws that saw
several private
newspapers fold during his tenure as information minister.
Moyo quit
ZANU-PF after falling out with Mugabe and ZANU-PF in 2005 after
opting to
contest as an independent candidate in parliamentary elections.
Zimbabwe
formed a unity government in February joining Mugabe's ZANU-PF and
Tsvangirai's MDC.
http://www.nytimes.com/
By REUTERS
Published: October 2,
2009
SOMERSET WEST, South Africa (Reuters) - Zimbabwe is on track to draw
up a
new constitution, the head of regional body SADC's parliamentary forum
said
on Friday, but he did not say when the charter is expected to be
adopted.
The form the new constitution should take is a major bone of
contention
between rival parties in the unity government.
In July
riot police had to break up clashes between delegates attending a
constitutional convention -- a sign of the tensions between President Robert
Mugabe and his rival, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
Zimbabweans
hope a new charter, replacing one drawn up in 1979 before
independence from
Britain, will strengthen the role of parliament, curtail
the president's
powers and guarantee civil, political and media freedom as
the country tries
to rebuild its ruined economy.
"I am very confident that Zimbabwe will
come out with an answer to the
problems of Zimbabwe, including the
constitutional dispensation," Prince
Guduza Dlamini, president of the
Southern African Development Community's
(SADC) parliamentary forum, told
Reuters.
Dlamini was speaking on the sidelines of the opening session of
the two-day
conference of the Association of European Parliamentarians for
Africa
(AWEPA), taking place about 40 km (25 miles) north of Cape
Town.
Dlamini did not say when the SADC, which helped broker the
formation of
Zimbabwe's unity government, wanted a new constitution to be
completed.
The convention in July was part of a process which should lead
to the
adoption of a new constitution and to elections in about two
years.
Many Western countries want the constitution adopted and reforms
to get
under way before they will provide billions of dollars in aid to help
rebuild Zimbabwe, and Dlamini said the charter could have a positive impact
on Zimbabwe's neighbours.
"We are all interdependent, so if country X
is having problems, those
problems are going to filter through to some of
the member countries. If we
are able to live up to the expectations of the
community (SADC), we believe
we will develop together," said Dlamini, also
the Speaker of Swaziland's
parliament.
Dlamini said an SADC
delegation visted Zimbabwe last month on a fact-finding
mission and the SADC
parliamentary forum would hold its next plenary meeting
in Zimbabwe sometime
in October.
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf, editing by Tim Pearce)
http://www.swradioafrica.com
THE COMMERCIAL FARMERS' UNION OF
ZIMBABWE - RESPONSE TO MINISTER MURERWA'S
MEMORANDUM TO CABINET DATED 27th
AUGUST 2009.
01 OCTBER 2009
The CFU has noted with alarm a
document now widely circulated in the Press
which has been referred to as
"the Secret Document". It appears to be a
Memorandum to cabinet issued by
the Minister of Lands and Rural
Resettlement, Herbert Murerwa on the 27th of
August, 2009. We have asked
Government to comment on the validity of this
document but to date have
received no response.
In short the content
of the document does everything needed to confirm the
unjust, corrupt and
unsustainable position in which the commercial
agricultural sub sector now
finds itself as a result of the lack of
transparency associated with the
Land Reform Programme. The recommendations
contained in the document are as
follows:
"11.1 Land acquisition and redistribution is an ongoing process
which should
continue given the incremental demand for land. Therefore
Government should
continue to acquire land as provided for in the
Constitution.
11.2 No foreigner should be allowed to own rural
agricultural land in
Zimbabwe
11.3 Agricultural land should be
excluded from protection afforded by
Bilateral Investment Promotion and
Protection Agreements.
11.4 The Ministry of Lands and Rural
Resettlement should continue issuing
offer letters, leases and permits to
deserving Zimbabwean Nationals.
11.5 The A2 beneficiaries who hold
offer letters must be given occupation of
the farms allocated to them.
Prosecution of farmers resisting to move off
the acquired land should be
expedited.
The above recommendations are submitted for Cabinet
approval."
If this document is genuine, our chief concern is whether
or not the
Government of Zimbabwe realises the desperate need to attract
foreign
investment or to stabilise the agricultural industry. These
recommendations
fly in the face of property rights and investor confidence.
Bilateral
Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements could be rendered
useless and
irrelevant. It would appear that Government's genuine and
private position
vis-a-vis Investor Confidence do not accord with Public
Statements made at
the various Investor Conferences and the Mining Indaba
held recently. This
action would have far reaching adverse effects on all
other investments in
many other fields including for example mining and
tourism. How will foreign
Investment be attracted if these policies are
allowed to prevail?
Furthermore, the document accepts the lack of legal
framework with regard to
offer letters. There is nothing in our law which
allows the Minister to
unilaterally offer land to whomsoever he or she
chooses. This does not
accord with accepted legal norms. "Offer letters" are
issued in terms of the
Agricultural Land Settlement Act and merely serve as
a pre-cursor to the
issuance of a Lease for State Land. Section 7 of the
Agricultural Land
Settlement Act requires that the Minister consider a
report on applications
for State Land from the Agricultural Land Settlement
board. Government has
consistently ignored this provision when issuing Offer
Letters.
The validity of all "Offer Letters" is as a consequence
questionable.
Therefore, farmers who "resist" do so because they feel they
have genuine
grounds. In most instances the affected farmers have
voluntarily downsized
their properties without receipt (or offer) of
compensation, and have
concentrated their efforts to maximise production on
the smaller area. They
must be afforded the opportunity to enforce their
legal rights.
Whilst we have not had an opportunity to do a comprehensive
detailed study
of the document we have noted from an initial reading many
glaring errors.
Moreover, the data by the documents own admission states the
position as at
October 2007. It is disturbing that cabinet is being asked to
consider these
recommendations based on outdated and inaccurate
data.
It is our contention that the attitude and spirit of the document
intends to
violate the terms of the Global Political Agreement (GPA).
Government
continues to insist that Land Reform has empowered the Zimbabwean
people. It
appears from the document that Government also insists that Land
Reform
continue albeit to the detriment of our members.
We ask who
has really been empowered by this process. We submit that unless
there is
complete transparency in all the procedures surrounding Land Reform
then
those criticisms and accusations we have heard that "Land Reform is an
illegitimate and fake process consolidating a system of political patronage
where the political elite have benefited..." will only be regarded as true
and taken very seriously by all stakeholders.
We stress and reiterate
that the CFU and its members have never been opposed
to legitimate and fair
Land Reform. All we ask is that our members as
farmers from all walks of
life be included in the process and allowed to use
their skills for the
benefit of the people of Zimbabwe.
Therefore, on behalf of our members we
beseech the Inclusive Government to
adhere to the terms of the GPA which the
document in question allegedly
intends to violate. In particular we ask that
in terms of Article 5.9 of the
GPA that a:
(a) ...comprehensive,
transparent and non partisan land audit, during the
tenure of the 7th
Parliament of Zimbabwe, for the purpose of establishing
accountability and
eliminating multiple farm ownerships,
(b) Ensure that all Zimbabweans who
are eligible to be allocated land and
who apply for it shall be considered
for the allocation of land irrespective
of race, gender, religion, ethnicity
or political affiliation,
(c) Ensure security of Tenure to all land
holders..."
http://www.swradioafrica.com
Carse Farm
50 families are
facing eviction from Carse farm, 20 km from Bindura town.
Ruston Ngandu who
took over Carse farm wants the 50 families off the farm as
he deems that
their presence is disturbing his farming activities.
Magistrate
Chakanyuka heard the case at the Bindura magistrate courts on the
28th of
September and deferred ruling to the 9th of October.
The 50 families, whose
lives are hanging by the line and face the likelihood
of becoming destitute
if evicted, are being represented by Human Rights
Defenders Lawyers Bonongwe
and Partners.
Douglas Ruwihi spoke with ROHR Zimbabwe and believes that
their eviction
case is politically motivated as Ruston Ngandu is punishing
them for being
supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change. Mr.Ruwihi
told ROHR
Zimbabwe that since 2002 when the farm was taken from a Robert
Kascoe, they
have been going through hell. Their homes were burnt during the
infamous
Operation Murambatsvina in 2002 and they have been experiencing a
series of
intimidation and attacks aimed at frustrating them to leave the
place that
they have known as home their entire lives. 'Our lives will be
destroyed if
the court rules in favor of Ngandu. We have lived here all our
lives and we
have nowhere to go.
Our fathers came from Malawi and
Mozambique' said Douglas Ruwihi.
Margaret Mukunga from the same group
said they have resorted to sleeping at
the grave yard at night as a way of
escaping victimization by their new farm
occupier. Their roofless houses are
no longer safe for human inhabiting as
they are exposed to colds and
mosquitoes at night. She expressed fears of
contracting malaria from
mosquito bites.
Margaret Mukunga told ROHR Zimbabwe that over 200 children at
the farm are
not going to school as the parents are finding it hard to
source income; the
only little money they are getting is going towards the
payment of legal
fees. So far they have paid a total of US 1900 legal fees
through selling
maize, brewing and selling beer.
Foothills
Farm
Magistrate Chakanyuka is expected to deliver a ruling today in a
case in
which former mayor of Bindura Webster Bepura is seeking the ouster
of 26
families from Foothills farm, 15 km from Bindura along Matepatepa
road. The
26 families are being represented by Bonongwe and partners under
the Human
Rights Defenders program which is aimed at providing legal
assistance for
the vulnerable citizens who find themselves unable to defend
their
constitutional and fundamental human rights.
Speaking on behalf
of the 26 families, Luckmore Langton says hell broke
loose when they
participated in the 2008 harmonized elections as voting
agents for the
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).Since then they have
been targeted in a
crack down on supporters of the MDC.
Langton has lived at Foothills farm
since 1986 and he accuses the former
mayor of Bindura, Webster Bepura of
destroying their homes, property,
livelihoods and barring them from carrying
out small scale gardens on the
farm which are their sole source of income.
He bemoans the life that they
are now living compared to how they lived
before the farm was taken away
from David Baiely in 2002.
He says
they used to afford school fees and transport to send their children
to
school 11km away but now they can only struggle to send the children as
far
as grade seven from their US $10 monthly earning.
There is no water and
electricity at the nearby school and clinic which
leaves high fears of a
cholera outbreak looming.
Mean while, a war veteran, Jacob Chiripanyanga
is also evicting Lazarus
Marunga, Lainos Zakeo, Gift Mhembere and Fanuel
Musona. This follows an
incident this month in which the four were assaulted
and had their homes
destroyed when they were attached by a group of ZANU PF
youth in the company
of Jacob Chiripanyanga.
ROHR Zimbabwe's Position
on the eviction of farm workers
We note with grave concern that the
plight of farm workers in the hands of
the new farm settlers has gone
unnoticed by the law enforcement authorities.
Farm workers throughout the
country have suffered immense human rights
violations ranging from denial to
the right to a decent shelter, food, state
protection, clean water, right to
education and right to decent standards of
living under the continued farm
evasions.
It is deplorable that the new farm settlers have resorted to
illegal
systematic violent intimidation campaigns that are aimed at
frustrating farm
workers and force them away from their homes. For the
eviction battles to
end up in the courts, the farm workers would have shown
resistance to the
illegal eviction often characterized by inhuman and
degrading frustrating
tendencies.
The acts of impunity against farm
workers have mainly been instigated on
political grounds by ZANU PF
supporters and youth militia as punishment to
those deemed to be affiliated
to the MDC in the form of organized violence,
destruction of property and
livelihoods.
AS ROHR Zimbabwe it is our principled position that farm
workers like any
other citizens of Zimbabwe, have alienable fundamental
human rights that are
inherent to the human family upon birth as guaranteed
under the Zimbabwean
Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Bill of Rights
and the African Charter on People's Rights and
Freedoms.
The ministry of Home Affairs should therefore launch an
investigation in the
welfare surrounding the handling of farm workers in all
the farms where
there has been transition from one owner to the other. The
core ministers of
the home affairs ministry Kembo Mohadi and Giles Mutsekwa
should discourage
the police from assuming partisan roles and stick to
ethical and
professional duties when handling cases that are politically
motivated
involving the eviction of vulnerable farm
workers.
Understanding what the national healing seeks to achieve, it is
our view
that the ongoing victimization of farm workers is an anathema to
finding
lasting peace among communities from the March-June 2008 painful
legacy. The
three political parties under the coalition government should
therefore take
heed of the agreements they made under the Global Political
Agreement to
guarantee the rule of law, respect for human rights and
providing
prerequisite friendly conditions for a democratic society for
people to
freely express, associate and engage in political activities
without fear of
persecution.
The coalition government should also
make frantic efforts to destabilize the
infrastructure of organized violence
which is still prevalent in the rural
areas across the country's ten
provinces. It is our humble view that people
will not open up to independent
and developmental contributions to the
constitution making process and to
the national healing exercise in the
presence of the infrastructure of
violence which manifested during last year's
bloody election violence in
which more than 200 people were killed.
For Peace, Justice and
Freedom
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/blog/?p=707
Posted By Alex Magaisa on 2 Oct, 2009 at 1:11
pm
AN OLD colleague sent me an email on Monday
afternoon.
“Maionaka Rule of Law yamunoswero chemera anaMagaisa?”
(Do you see the Rule
of Law that you always ask
for?).
“Ndiyoka Rule of Law yacho iyi?” (This is the Rule of
Law), he declared
emphatically.
He was of course, referring
to the decision pronounced earlier that day by
the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
to grant a permanent stay of prosecution in
favour of Jestina
Mukoko.
The story of Mukoko is not new to followers of the
Zimbabwe story.
Mukoko, a human rights activist, was abducted,
kept in unlawful custody and
subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at
the hands of state agents.
Many other activists (including a toddler and an
elderly gentleman) suffered
a similar fate.
In its decision,
the Supreme Court confirmed that several of Mukoko’s
constitutional rights
had been violated. These included the right to
personal liberty (Section 13
of the constitution), the freedom against
inhuman and degrading treatment
(Section 15) and the right to the protection
of the law (Section 18). These
rights are guaranteed to every individual
under the Constitution of
Zimbabwe. Flawed as it may be, the constitution
does provide for the
protection of these fundamental rights.
“I’m happy for Jestina,”
I wrote to my colleague. “I’m happy that this
unnecessary and heavy load has
been shifted from her shoulders by the
Supreme Court.”
But I
added that the court had no other choice. It was clear from the start
that
the manner in which Mukoko had been treated violated every law and
principle
- written or unwritten; that indeed, her treatment was a brutal
assault on
the nation’s conscience. It did not even require the law to set
her free.
“Common sense,” I wrote, “required that she be set free”. Anything
else
would have meant a huge embarrassment for our main court.
As for
the Rule of Law, I thought my colleague had been too hasty in his
conclusion. The result of the case has gone some way towards salvaging the
reputation of our judiciary. Nevertheless, there is more to the Rule of Law
than a single positive decision, however monumental it appears. There are
some observations to be made in this regard:
First, it has
taken more than nine months to decide a matter that involved a
clear and
obvious breach of a citizen’s fundamental rights. The court
rightly found
that these rights had been violated. If individual rights are
to mean
anything in reality, it is important that they be protected upfront
or at
the very least without undue delay.
What we have here is a
decision which acknowledges that there were
violations of these rights. Yet,
from day one the courts were approached by
Mukoko’s lawyers. They tried
everything to ensure that there was a cessation
of the violations of
Mukoko’s rights. Yet, as I wrote at the time, Mukoko
and her lawyers were
subjected to what were in effect bungee-jumps in the
justice system - a high
speed and chaotic roller-coaster as they moved from
one court to another, to
no avail.
The point is: there was a chance to stop these unlawful
acts against Mukoko
but those opportunities were not taken when it mattered
most.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights can only make sense when they are
actively safeguarded from violation in the first place. What good is a right
when it is violated and the protection of the law is not given when asked
for? Mukoko could well have suffered worse consequences during the period of
her unlawful custody. She could have contracted disease; she could have
disappeared forever, indeed, she could have died.
This case
demonstrates how important it is for the courts to play an active
role in
the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. What the
Supreme Court
has found is not new. In a key but largely unreported
judgment, Justice
Hungwe of the High Court had already made similar
observations, chiding the
state agents for their conduct. This was known and
it could have been
stooped ages ago.
Second, if there is to be effective deterrence
against similar conduct in
future, surely those who presided over the
violation of Mukoko’s rights as
found by the highest court in the land,
should feel the hand of the law.
There should be a clear message that those
who commit such actions against
other citizens should not be beyond the law.
The reason why people act with
impunity, as they did to Mukoko and others in
her situation, is that they
know that they will escape the legal
consequences of their actions.
As it is, whilst there are
celebrations in light of the judgment, it is easy
to forget that there is
absolutely nothing to stop the same or similar
people from taking the same
actions against Mukoko and others now or in the
future. In other words, she
or someone else could well be abducted and
subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment just as it happened in December
last year. One way to
deter such conduct is to place legal responsibility
upon the shoulders of
the perpetrators of these hideous acts.
This, therefore, presents
a key challenge to one of the most disputed
offices in Zimbabwe - the
Attorney-General’s Office. How will the incumbent,
Johannes Tomana handle
this one? The highest court in the land has found
conclusively that Mukoko’s
rights were violated. They were not violated by
objects from outer space.
These actions were taken by Zimbabweans who
presumably are known. There is a
key witness, Mukoko herself. Ideally, one
would think that this is a case
where the Attorney General, the most senior
state lawyer entrusted with
powers to prosecute criminals would have taken
swift action to ensure that
perpetrators are brought to book.
Section 76 (4a) of the
Constitution empowers the Attorney General to require
the Commissioner
General of Police to commence investigations in matters
where in the
Attorney General’s opinion relate to any alleged/suspected
criminal offence.
The Commissioner General is peremptorily required to
comply with that
instruction. So the powers are there but whether or not
they are invoked is
another matter but one that surely tests very severely
the commitment of the
prosecuting authorities to the Rule of Law.
Indeed, if the
alleged theft of a cell-phone caused the hand of the law to
move so swiftly
in the case of Thamsanqa Mahlangu, one would expect that the
serious
violation of constitutional rights as found by the country’s biggest
court
would be enough to cause that hand of the law to move at twice the
speed, if
not more.
There is another issue in relation to a number of other
persons who suffered
the same fate as Mukoko. I am advised that these
persons were not co-parties
to the application by Mukoko. This means the
decision directly affects
Mukoko but not the others, whose cases remain
pending before the High Court.
If my understanding is correct,
this means these individual cases must be
dealt with by the Supreme Court
before a stay of prosecution can be granted.
I am not sure why the cases
were not joined with that of Mukoko but I
suppose there were practical
reasons for the approach taken. In any event,
Mukoko’s case is now a firm
precedent which should apply to all these cases.
Given this
scenario, you would think that the prosecution authorities would
see sense
and withdraw the charges. Certainly, the AG’s office should be
considering
this very seriously if only to avoid further embarrassment.
More
importantly, where a Supreme Court has made such an important decision
implicating agents of the state, you would expect normal standards of
professionalism and decency to prevail amongst those in charge of those
state agents. Surely, there can be no worse or more serious an indictment
against responsible authorities than a decision by the highest court in the
land which demonstrates impunity on the part of those
organs.
In any normal system, heads of those state organs would
have been too
embarrassed to remain in office. They would tender their
resignations for
failing to keep proper watch of their charges. In other
words, they would
take responsibility seriously. And if they don’t have the
decency to do so,
their superiors would kindly ask them to
resign.
When I explained this to my colleague, he said rather
dismissively,
‘Urikurota, wangu” (You are dreaming, my friend). Of course, I
understood
him well because unfortunately, he could well be right. But I
said to him,
“The Rule of Law is not an event. It is a culture. You can’t
hold it in your
hands; you can’t see it with the naked eye. But you can feel
its presence;
it is measured by the conduct and attitudes of the human
being.”
It doesn’t escape some of us that in the past, some major
Supreme Court
decisions have been crudely circumvented through executive and
legislative
decisions. One hopes that’s a thing of the
past.
Finally, of course the decision was welcome news to some of
us who despite
our misgivings, maintain a strong desire to see the country
get back on its
feet. We have seen from experience that it is very hard to
sell Zimbabwe
when there are so many negatives around.
♦ Last
week my colleagues and I who belong to a young organisation called
the
Zimbabwe Diaspora Development Interface (ZDDI) hosted a conference on
investment, development and migration in Zimbabwe. It was a beautiful event
at which I was pleasantly surprised by the will and commitment of fellow
Zimbabweans in the Diaspora to play a role in the reconstruction project
(see www.zimdisaporainterface.org).
The
message was simple: there is will and resources but it is hard to push
the
country’s cause in an atmosphere of negativity. For as long as there are
those who wish to build the negative image, this job will be very hard. The
Supreme Court’s decision in the Mukoko case is welcome news but one of a
number of issues that require resolution.
Alex Magaisa is
based at the Kent Law School, University of Kent, and can be
contacted on
e-mail wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
The Southern Africa
Litigation Centre
Opinion
IN RE: SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE, ZIMBABWE, AS TO THE LEGAL COMPETENCE OF THE SADC TRIBUNAL, THE
ENFORCEABILITY OF ITS DECISIONS, AND THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE ZIMBABWEAN
GOVERNMENT AS THEY RELATE TO THE TRIBUNAL
22 September
2009
A. Introduction
1.An opinion, dated 31
August 2009, purporting to be that of the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe
and signed by the Honourable P.A. Chinamasa, Zimbabwean Minster of Justice and
Legal Affairs (the Minister), seeks to challenge the SADC Tribunal’s legal
competence, the enforceability of its decisions and the legal obligations owed
by the Republic of Zimbabwe to the Tribunal on the basis, in essence, that the
Tribunal has not been properly established under international law.[1]
2.There have been several
responses to this opinion.[2] Those responses in
turn have prompted further statement from the Minister on the status of the SADC
Tribunal.[3] On the 19
September 2009 a further legal opinion, on behalf of the Zimbabwe Commercial
Farmers Union, was issued, addressing the Minister’s claim that the SADC
Tribunal is improperly constituted.
3.The Southern Africa
Litigation Centre, an organisation promoting human rights and the rule of law in
southern Africa, is obviously deeply concerned at the challenge to the SADC
Tribunal. But, as is evident, much has already been said on this issue and we do
not wish to reiterate arguments already made. We therefore confine ourselves to
submissions not yet made.
4.In our submissions below
we address the contentions made that international law requires that subsequent
amendment to the SADC Treaty be subject to a process of ratification and that
the Protocol of the SADC Tribunal is not subject to amendment prior to coming
into force. As will be shown, neither of these propositions has any validity at
international law – at best fundamentally misunderstanding the inherent
flexibility that infuses the law of treaties; at worst, deliberately
misrepresenting the position under international law.
5.Notwithstanding the
misstatement of principles of international law, we call on SADC to welcome the
intent expressed on the part of the Zimbabwean government, as conveyed by the
Minister, to be bound by and to adhere to the tenets of international law and we
urge SADC to hold the Zimbabwean government to this express commitment.[4]
B. No Requirement of
Ratification for Amendments to Enter into Force
6.In sum, the opinion of
the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe (the Zimbabwe opinion) maintains that
as the SADC Treaty is silent as to how amendments enter into force, customary
international law prevails and requires that the same procedures applicable to
the entry into force of the Treaty itself are of application to the amendment.
As two-thirds of the Member States of SADC were required to ratify the Treaty
before it entered into force, the same proportion of member States is required
to ratify an amendment before it enters into force. This was not done in respect
of the 2001 Agreement Amending the Treaty of the Southern African Development
Community (the Amending Agreement) and in the absence thereof, the amendment has
not entered into force and more pertinently, the SADC Tribunal is improperly
established.
7.This is not a position
that has any validity under international law and fundamentally misrepresents
the inherent flexibility that characterises the law of treaties, particularly in
respect of the conclusion and entry into force of agreements. A brief survey of
the applicable provisions in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties[5] (the Vienna
Convention) shows this to be the case.
8.Article 39 of the Vienna
Convention states the general rule regarding the amendment of treaties: “A treaty may be amended by agreement between the
parties.”
9.It continues: “The rules
laid down in Part II apply to such an agreement except insofar as the treaty may
otherwise provide.” Part II of the Vienna Convention regulates the conclusion
and entry into force of treaties, and given the specification of the latter part
of Article 39, does likewise in respect of the conclusion and entry into force
of amendments.
10. Article 24 of the
Convention, governing the entry into force of treaties, and thus of amendments,
provides:
1.A treaty enters into
force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating
State may agree.
2. Failing any such provision or agreement, a
treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be bound by the treaty has been
established for all the negotiating States.
11. Consent to be bound by a
treaty and, mutatis mutandis, an amendment, is established in terms of Article
11 of the Convention:
The consent of a State
to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments
constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so
agreed.[emphasis
added]
12. Taken together, and
separately, these articles are illustrative of the inherent flexibility of the
law of treaties. Article 11’s reference to ‘other means if so agreed’ indicates
that agreement does not have to be express: it is enough for it to be implicit
in the text of treaty or otherwise established, for example by conduct. As
Anthony Aust explains in Modern Treaty
Law and Practice:
[I]t is possible for a
treaty to be adopted, without signature, or any other procedure, and enter into
force instantly for all the adopting states. The treaty which established the
Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty 1996 (CTBT)
was adopted by a resolution of the states which had signed the CTBT and was
effective, at least in international law, immediately without any further act by
those states.[6]
13. Use of the word
‘agreement’ in Article 39 of the Vienna Convention, similarly encourages a
flexible approach in respect of amendments, recognising “that it is perfectly
possible to supplement a treaty by an agreement which does not itself constitute
a treaty, or by an oral agreement. . .” [7]
14. Contrary to the
propositions advanced in the Zimbabwe opinion on the need for a “somewhat rigid
and solemn process of ratification”, it is apparent, even from the unexpanded
provisions of the Vienna Convention, that ratification is not mandatory for the
entry into force of treaties or of amendments. It is not even the default
position for entry into force of treaties or amendments. As Aust
explains:
It has long been the
practice of states whenever they intend a treaty to enter into force by a
procedure involving more than just signature to provide evidence of that
intention, and usually by an express provision in the treaty itself.
Furthermore, when a treaty provides for ratification it is presumed that a state
has not become bound by its conduct unless that is clearly its intention. If
there is no indication, express or implied, of the need for ratification the
treaty will be presumed to enter into force on signature.[8]
15. Even if ratification is
agreed upon by the Parties as the means by which the original treaty comes into
force, it is not necessarily the means by which subsequent amendments come into
force. What is fundamental is the agreement of the Parties, and consequently
their respective intent.[9]
16. Aust’s survey of the
procedures generally adopted for amendment (excerpted also in the Zimbabwe’s
Government’s Opinion) makes it plain that ratification is not required before
amendments enter into force.
The amendment procedures built into treaties in recent
years are often elaborate. No two are the same, each being tailored to suit the
particular needs of the organisation or treaty, but they usually provide
for:
(1) the number of parties,
or votes in the plenary body or meeting, needed to support an amendment before
it has to be put to all the parties;
(2) the majority needed for
adoption of the amendment;
(3) whether the adopted
amendment needs to be ratified or accepted (some treaties enable technical
annexes to be amended simply by a decision of a body or
meeting);
(4) if so, the number of parties which need to ratify or accept for
the amendment to enter into force;
(5) where ratification or
acceptance is not required, whether the amendment can be adopted by tacit
agreement;
(6) whether the amendment
binds those parties which do not accept it.
17. As is evident, none of
these procedures is mandatory and entry into force of amendments can be effected
in a variety of ways: through simple
decision of a body or meeting or, by tacit agreement, etc. However, the
centrality of agreement between parties is again underlined.
18. The only mandatory
requirements for amendment (although these too can be deviated from if the
treaty so provides), as stipulated by Article 40(2) of the Vienna Convention,
are that :
Any proposal to amend a
multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the
contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part
in:
(a) the decision as to the
action to be taken in regard to such proposal;
(b) the negotiation and
conclusion of any agreement for the amendment of the
treaty.
19. Article 36 of the SADC
Treaty indicates that these requirements were clearly recognised and provided
for.[10]
20. The Zimbabwe opinion
maintains that “in the absence of a provision to the contrary in a treaty, the
coming into force of an amendment is covered by the same underlying principles
as those for the coming into force of the treaty.”[11] That unassailable
position is supported by Article 39 of the Vienna Convention, and not Article 40
as maintained in the opinion.
21. Much more material
however, is that from this unassailable position the following contentions,
completely unreferenced and appearing without any authority, appear to be
derived: “[b]ecause the Treaty does not contain provisions for entry into force
which are specific to an amendment, customary international law applies and
accordingly the intention of the Member States is taken to have been that the
same provisions for the coming into force of the Treaty will apply to an
amendment”[12], and that “[t]he entry into force is governed
by customary international law and requires that the same procedures for the
entry into force of the Treaty be adopted for the entry into force of the
amendment.”[13]
22. The Vienna Convention,
which the Zimbabwe Opinion recognises as a restatement of customary
international law, makes no such provision.
What it does provide in Article 39 is that the same rules applicable to
the conclusion and entry into force of treaties apply to the conclusion and
entry into force of amendments. Imperative for entry into force of treaties, and
no less for amendment, is that agreement or consent is established and that such
consent can be established by any agreed means.
23. In respect of the
original SADC Treaty, Member States elected to have the Treaty enter into force
“thirty (30) days after the deposit of the instruments of ratification by
two-thirds of the States listed in the Preamble.” There are no provisions in the
Treaty which specify how amendments are to enter into force. Certainly, there is no indication from the
text that State Parties intended that ratification be required before amendments
would enter into force. The provisions concerning amendment and those relating
to ratification and entry into force of the Treaty are contained in separate
chapters of the Treaty. Moreover, the provisions relating to signature and
ratification refer to ‘High Contracting Parties’, whereas the provisions
applicable to amendment refer to the Summit – suggesting that a process for the
conclusion and entry into force of amendments distinct from that for the
original SADC Treaty was envisaged.
24. But even if the Treaty
did expressly stipulate how amendments were to enter into force, even if State
parties had intended that amendments enter into force through ratification, that
would not be dispositive of the matter.
As Aust explains, subsequent agreement will supersede any procedure
earlier agreed on:
The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species 1973 (CITES) was effectively modified
by a resolution of the Conference of the Parties in 1986 despite an amendment
procedure having been built into the Convention.[14]
25. Agreement was very
clearly reached between Members of the Summit as to the entry into force of the
Amending Agreement. The plain meaning of Article 32 couldn’t be any more clear
that a distinctive rule was adopted as to the coming into force of the Amending
Agreement:
This Agreement shall
enter into force on the date of its adoption by three-quarters of all members of
the Summit.
26. As agreement was very
clearly reached as to entry into force of the Amending Agreement and consent to
be bound clearly indicated there can now be no valid argument that the SADC
Treaty was improperly amended and that the consequences of the amendment –
including that the Protocol of the SADC Tribunal became an integral part of the
SADC Treaty – have no legal effect.
C. The Protocol May Be
Amended
27. As consent to be bound
by the Amending Agreement can be established for all Members of the SADC Summit,
including Zimbabwe, little need be said as to the entry into force of the
Protocol for the SADC Tribunal. By virtue of amended Article 16 of the SADC
Treaty the Protocol became an integral part of the Treaty, obviating further
need for signature or ratification of the Protocol.[15]
28. However, as an
illustration of the centrality of agreement to the law of treaties, of its
inherent flexibility, and of the extent to which the Zimbabwe opinion fails to
appreciate this centrality, it is worth noting that the opinion maintains that
“any purported amendments to the Protocol are invalid ab initio as a Protocol which has not
yet come into force cannot be amended in accordance with its own provisions.”[16]
29. While it is true that a
treaty or any other multilateral instrument cannot, prior to it coming into
force, be amended in accordance with its own provisions, as those provisions are
not yet operative, the opinion errs in maintaining that a multilateral
instrument cannot be amended prior to coming into force. It can. According to
Aust:
It may be necessary to
amend a multilateral treaty even before it has entered into force.[17]
30. Most famously, the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, which entered into force in 1999, was
amended by a supplementary agreement in 1994.[18]
31. In this instance, the
Protocol on the SADC Tribunal was first amended by Article 18 of the Amending
Agreement of 2001 and thereafter by the Agreement Amending the Protocol on the
Tribunal 2002, both of which constitute legitimate amendments at international
law.
D. Conclusion
32. Neither the position
that the Amending Agreement to the SADC Treaty requires ratification nor that
the Protocol of the Tribunal is not subject to amendment are supported at
international law. Amendment to the Treaty and Protocol were validly made and
the Minister’s disputation thereof is without merit.
Nicole
Fritz
Lloyd
Kuveya
The Southern
Africa Litigation Centre
22 September
2009
[1] See: Execution
and Enforcement of Judgments of the SADC Tribunal, Opinion of the Government of
the Republic of Zimbabwe on issues relating to International Law which were
raised at the Meeting of Ministers of Justice/Attorneys-General
which was held in Pretoria, South Africa from 30 July to 31 July 2009, 31 August
2009.
[2] For an opinion by Zimbabwe Lawyers for
Human Rights, see: http://www.zlhr.org.zw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=122. An opinion was also issued
by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum and on behalf of the Zimbabwe Commercial
Farmers Union.
[3] See document
titled: Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs Responds to Various Opinions on
the Status of the SADC Tribunal.
[4] The opinion
refers to international law as an “indispensable body of rules regulating for
the most part the relations between States, without which it would be virtually
impossible for them to have a steady and frequent
intercourse.”
[5] 1969 U.N.T.S. 1155,
331
[6] Aust, Anthony,
Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press (2000) at
90.
[7] Ibid, at
213.
[8] Ibid at
76.
[9] See too article
4.4.1 of the UN Treaty Handbook: “If the treaty does not specify any amendment
procedures, the parties may negotiate a new treaty or agreement amending the
existing treaty.”
[10] Article 36
provides:
1. An amendment of
this Treaty shall be adopted by a decision of three-quarters of all Members of
the Summit.
2. A proposal for
the amendment of this Treaty may be made to the Executive Secretary by any
Member States for preliminary consideration by the Council, provided, however,
that the proposed amendment shall not be submitted to the Council for
preliminary consideration until all Member States have been duly notified of it,
and a period of three months has elapsed after such
notification.
[11] Supra n 1at
4.
[12] Ibid at
8.
[13] Ibid at 9.
[14] Supra n 6 at
214.
[15] Article 16(20
of the SADC Treaty provides: “the composition, powers, functions, procedures and
other related matters governing the Tribunal shall be prescribed in a Protocol,
which shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 22 of this Treaty, form
an integral part of this Treaty, adopted by the Summit.”
[16] Supra n 1 at
13.
[17] Supra n 6 at 222.
[18] Id.
http://www.crisisgroup.org
Donald Steinberg
Testimony by Donald Steinberg,
Deputy President, International Crisis Group,
to U.S. Subcommittee on
Africa, "Exploring U.S. Policy Options toward
Zimbabwe's Transition", 30
September
2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.
Chairman. I would like to thank you and ranking member Senator Isakson
for
bringing us together today to explore policy options toward the
transition
in Zimbabwe, and for your continuing leadership on these issues.
As an
international non-governmental organization committed to preventing
and
ending deadly conflict, International Crisis Group believes that
Zimbabwe
now has its best chance in a decade to put behind it the divisions,
abuses,
and self-implosion that has been the legacy of the abusive regime of
Robert
Mugabe. The combination of an inclusive government, a re-emerging and
vibrant civil society, an educated population and work force, a once-rich
manufacturing, agricultural and mining sector waiting for recovery; and the
good will of countries in its region and beyond can open the door to a
post-conflict recovery that would benefit both its long-suffering people and
the broader southern African region.
But for all the hopeful
possibilities inherent in this situation, a
"wait-and-see" attitude from the
international community, including the
United States, risks creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy of a return to
conflict and
repression.
MDC's Entry into Government
When Morgan Tsvangirai led
his party, the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC), into a unity government
with Zimbabwe African National Union
(ZANU-PF) in February 2009 under the
terms of the Global Political Accord,
sceptics gave the new formation little
chance of success. Tsvangirai and the
MDC were portrayed as neophytes who
would soon become the latest victims of
Mugabe's "divide, rule, co-opt and
destroy" strategy. It was broadly
understood that the MDC position was
driven by a pragmatic assessment of
their options. Mugabe and his hard-line
allies and security forces held most
of the cards: a monopoly on force, a
willingness to repress and abuse its
political opponents, and the obsequious
support of South African President
Thabo Mbeki, charged by the Southern
African Development Community to
negotiate a solution to the long-standing
electoral and political crisis.
The MDC calculated that its capacity to
affect change would be greater
within government than outside
it.
Understandably repulsed by the autocratic actions, human rights
abuses, and
corrupt practices of Mugabe and his coterie, foreign donors -
including the
United States - have held back on support to the new
government in which
they maintain the upper hand. The original approach of
providing only
narrowly defined humanitarian assistance was eventually
modified to a
position described as "humanitarian-plus," and included
support for not only
life-saving emergency projects, but also for
agricultural recovery, civil
servants involved in relief exercises, and
health and educational
institutions. This approach was seen as balancing a
desire to improve the
lot of Zimbabwe's population with continuing pressure
on the actors in the
new government - especially Mugabe and ZANU-PF - to
meet their commitments
toward a transition to democracy
governance.
Against long odds, the new government started out reasonably
well. Many
schools and hospitals re-opened. The Zimbabwe dollar, which had
been turned
into an international joke by multi-billion percent inflation,
was shelved.
Civil servants were paid a small stipend and returned to work;
goods started
to return to empty store shelves; a cholera epidemic was
brought under
control; and a bipartisan parliamentary committee was formed
to reform the
constitution. Human rights activists reported a significant
drop in
government abuses.
An ambitious reconstruction program - the
Short-Term Economic Recovery
Programme - identified the need for about $8.5
billion in resources,
including foreign assistance and investment, and was
generally well-received
by foreign donors and the Bretton Woods
institutions. Prime Minister
Tsvangirai, Finance Minister Tendai Biti and
their MDC party received much
of the credit for these developments - even
from the rank-and-file army -
and a new sense of hope returned to
Zimbabwe.
But Tsvangirai could see clearly that these changes were
fragile and pleaded
for foreign help to consolidate them. "Don't make us pay
for working with
Mugabe," he wrote in a powerful opinion piece in the London
Times.
Indeed, from early on, there were ample signs of concern. Farm
seizures have
continued virtually unabated. While human rights abuses
declined,
ZANU-PF-led security forces have continued to arrest and detain
activists
and MDC parliamentarians. Hard-line partisans like the Reserve
Bank Governor
Gideon Gono and the Attorney General Johannes Tomana were
unduly
reappointed, top generals boycotted the new national security
establishments
and showed public disdain for Tsvangirai, and ZANU-PF has
delayed or ignored
key commitments under the Global Political Accord (GPA).
The constitutional
reform process has been thwarted by ZANU-PF's insistence
that the
secretly-authored Kariba draft serve as the basis for a new
constitution.
Some old regime elements, especially hard-line generals and
other Mugabe
loyalists, are actively thwarting the new government, motivated
by fear of a
loss of power and its financial benefits; possible prosecution
for their
crimes; hatred of Tsvangirai and the MDC; and a belief that that
they are
the guardians of the country's liberation. These forces continue to
work
flat out to undermine the inclusive government by stalling processes
that
should lead to the fulfilment of the GPA and refusing to implement
government decisions. True to form, Mugabe is giving them backing, calling
into grave question his commitment to make the inclusive government
work.
The Risks of International Disengagement
During his visit to
the United States and Europe this summer, Tsvangirai was
met with luke-warm
encouragement, much skepticism, and very little cash. In
addition to the
revulsion over supporting a government including Mugabe,
Zimbabwe's timing
was awful. It was seeking massive foreign aid and private
investment at a
time when donors were cutting aid budgets and foreign
investors were seeking
safe havens in the stormy global economy. Tellingly,
no one has called for a
"Marshall Plan for Zimbabwe."
In fact, this stance risks thwarting the
very changes the international
community is seeking, both by weakening the
hand of the MDC and moderates in
ZANU-PF, and by undercutting popular
support for the reform process. The
humanitarian situation remains dire,
with reluctant donors pledging less
than half of the $718 million required
to ward off disease and hunger. The
United Nations and non-governmental
organizations have warned of a potential
new cholera outbreak ahead of the
rainy season. Moreover, doctors and
teachers have gone on strike to demand
better pay. The government is unable
to buy grain from farmers because the
Grain Marketing Board has no money.
The constitutional reform process is
stalled in part over the failure of the
government to finance outreach and
consultation programs.
Already, there are disturbing warnings that the
MDC is losing contact with
its popular base, including in the context of the
constitutional reform
process. Civil society activists are increasingly
complaining that this
process is being driven by political elites for their
own purposes. Similar
arguments are emerging with regard to efforts to
develop mechanisms to hold
the perpetrators of human rights abuses
accountable for their actions.
Within the MDC itself, some question the
wisdom of remaining in the unity
government.
Further, despite succession
battles within ZANU-PF between the rival
factions of the hard-line Defense
Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa and the more
moderate General Solomon Mujuru and
his wife, Vice President Joice Mujuru,
the forces committed to Mugabe seem
to be firmly in control.
Maintain Targeted Sanctions; Enhance
Targeted Assistance
Mr. Chairman, the United States must stand firmly
against those who are
thwarting the democratic transformation in Zimbabwe.
Tough targeted
sanctions - including trade and travel bans and assets
freezes - against
such individuals and the companies they control under the
International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act,
and section 301
of title 3 of the U.S. Code should remain in place to secure
the commitment
of the recalcitrant parties to their commitments under the
GPA.
But at the same time, targeted reconstruction and development assistance
-
channeled through fully transparent, credible and accountable mechanisms
and
institutions - is essential now. Such mechanisms do exist: the
International
Monetary Fund, for example, has ensured responsible use of the
one-time
expansion of special drawing rights to Zimbabwe equivalent to a
$500 million
loan for the purpose of building and repairing
schools,
hospitals, roads, railways and communication networks.
The United States,
other donors, and international financial institutions
should:
Expand
assistance to support revival of the education, agriculture, water,
health
and water sanitation, including support for the soon-to-be-announced
Government Works Program. Particular attention should be given to programs
to assist women, including reproductive health care and girls'
education.
Help empower a functioning civil service and legislature, and
support reform
of politicized government institutions, including the
judiciary.
Strengthen civil society - groups of women, academics,
journalists, lawyers,
farmers, and others - fractured and polarized in
recent years by Mugabe's
divide-and-rule tactics.
Adopt innovative
programs to encourage new trade and foreign investment in
Zimbabwe to
address the country's massive unemployment rate and promote the
return of
four million Zimbabwean migrants who are increasingly the target
of
xenophobic attacks in South Africa and elsewhere in the
region.
America's Interests in Zimbabwe's Recovery
Mr.
Chairman. At a time when crises in Afghanistan, Burma, Congo, Iran,
Iraq,
North Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan fill the in-boxes
of
American policy-makers, it would be easy to move the slow-simmering
crisis
to the back-burner. Neither the MDC nor ZANU-PF consorts with global
terrorists, and collapse of the unity government will not lead to jihadi
training camps in rural areas. Zimbabwe is neither a supplier nor a major
trafficker in illegal drugs, arms or persons. Its refugees are not flooding
into the United States. Zimbabwe has no oil, and most of its minerals face
free-falling global demand. No exotic diseases threaten pandemic: it suffers
from "just" cholera, malaria and HIV/AIDS. The country straddles no sea
lanes and has no pirates.
But there are strong motivations for broad
American engagement. Just because
the global effects of Zimbabwe's implosion
have so far been modest, this
could change rapidly. Transnational threats
incubate in unexpected ways in
the hothouse of instability and weak
governance. What if the H1N1 virus had
emerged in Harare and swept through a
country where the health
infrastructure had been ravaged?
Zimbabwe's
recovery is of major regional importance. If Zimbabwe is a
smallish country
of 12 million people, the southern African region - with a
market of 200
million, growing oil production, peacekeepers throughout
Africa, and a
location along key shipping lanes - is by contrast of great
strategic,
commercial and political importance to the United States. A
prosperous
Zimbabwe could be an engine of growth for the region, providing
key links to
regional communications, transport and electricity grids.
Zimbabwe has long
been considered a potential breadbasket for the region,
based on what used
to be efficient agriculture, albeit needing serious and
responsible land
reform.
By contrast, instability in Zimbabwe is profoundly destabilizing
to its
neighbors. An estimated four million Zimbabweans fleeing economic
hardship
and political abuses have flooded across borders, overwhelming the
social
services and the good will of South Africa, Botswana, and other
neighbors.
Botswana, Africa's shining star of stability and human rights,
has built an
electrified fence and resorted to detention and expulsions to
keep desperate
Zimbabweans out.
This regional importance has been one
reason why the SADC has been
advocating greater international support for
the unity government. South
Africa itself has put up about $75 million to
support the process of
democratic transformation. During his visit to Harare
in late August and a
subsequent meeting Secretary of State Clinton, South
African President Jacob
Zuma gave welcome indications that he will press a
tougher stance vis-à-vis
Mugabe on outstanding GPA obligations, respect for
rule of law, and
cessation of repressive actions by the security forces
under his control.
But regrettably, the international community cannot
rely solely on
Zimbabwe's neighbors to promote this process. As shown again
in their
September 7-8 meeting in Kinshasa, many SADC leaders continue to
kowtow to
Mugabe. Following a presentation in which he told these leaders
that the
unity government is doing well, SADC unproductively called for the
lifting
of targeted international sanctions on Zimbabwe and cancelled an
extraordinary summit on Zimbabwe to review the weak implementation of the
GPA.
Working with regional actors, the broader international community
and, of
course, the Zimbabwean people themselves, the United States has a
unique
opportunity to promote democratic transformation and socio-economic
recovery
in Zimbabwe.
I know that some worry that such a strategy
would prematurely reward Mugabe
and his hard-line supporters, or somehow
reduce the pressure on them to
cooperate with the reform process.
In
truth, a policy of engagement and targeted assistance through credible
and
transparent channels would strengthen the hands of moderates and make it
more difficult for the extremists to again seize power, which would result
in even greater repression and isolation for Zimbabwe's people and greater
instability throughout South African and beyond. Put simply: we believe that
if you want to sideline Mugabe and his hard-liners, you should support the
people of Zimbabwe by embracing the unity government now.
Thank
you.
Not that long ago I was
maintaining a list of the court orders that ZANU PF
and its various wings
had defied with absolute impunity - and sadly I lost
that list when my
computer was hacked. (The security on this machine has
been beefed up
something serious now, so I don't envisage a repeat anytime
soon.)
It
beggared belief that ZANU PF could just brazenly ignore any order issued
by
one of the highest courts in the land - but then again, if you are
batting
for Robert Gabriel Mugabe, you become one of the 'untouchables'.
This
week, Charles Lock, the soon-to-be ex-owner of Karori Farm in Headlands
was
granted a court order which was to allow him, "full and unfettered right
to
remove all and any of the goods, as well as any other move able assets,
including his equipment and fittings in the tobacco barns, cattle handling
facilities, household and personal effects, from the land" - but, as I
prophesised on my main page yesterday, he was no even given access onto the
land, let alone to his crops and equipment.
Court Order Defiance
Unpunished In Zimbabwe
"Armed soldiers barred me from entering the farm
when I went there on Friday
after the High Court ruling."
On my main
page this morning, I questioned why a senior army officer - a
Brigadier no
less - should have his own band of armed soldiers at the farm?
They can't be
there on official duty, unless, of course, they have been
ordered to the
farm by the Brigadier himself.
A question which is often discussed is if
an officer issues an illegal order
to a subordinate and that subordinate
carries out that order, who is to
culpable? The answer is, of course, the
officer - so, even if the soldiers
were acting on direct orders from the
Brigadier, it is the Brigadier that
should face the wrath of the
law.
The problem that faces Lock is that his actions will be deemed
unpatriotic
and the full weight of various wings of ZANU PF will fall very
heavily on
Lock.
He will not be able to reap his crops. Neither will
he be allowed to recover
his agricultural equipment, nor his personal
property. As a direct result of
his going to the law courts to get a court
order, the Brigadier will baton
down the hatches and prevent any incursion
upon 'his' land.
Dare I say it - Lock may find himself under lock and
key.
As I wrote yesterday, I understand the land appropriation, but
disagree
entirely with blatant theft and the threat of violence.
If
Lock has spent his money on the crops in the ground, it is his right to
reap
that crop - and any attempt by the Brigadier to reap what he has not
sown
should be constituted as theft.
But, in Zimbabwe, possession is nine
tenths of the law - and so the
Brigadier will be deemed the new 'owner' of
the crop, which he will reap and
sell, converting the proceeds thereof to
his own pocket.
And the land will not be worked for the next season, and
within a few months
I see the farm being derelict, unused - a skeleton
picked dry by the
marauding masses, masquerading as 'new'
landowners.
And this is not a clever deduction - all I have to do is look
at the vast
majority of farms that have suffered the same
fate.
Courts orders in Zimbabwe mean nothing to Mugabe and ZANU
PF.
And defiance of these orders by ZANU PF renegades remains
unpunished.
Robb WJ Ellis
The Bearded Man
http://mandebvhu.instablogs.com/entry/court-order-defiance-unpunished-in-zimbabwe/
In the recent CNN interview with President Mugabe, he was
recorded as saying
two things about the land reform process in Zimbabwe:
first he claimed that
Zimbabwe had grown enough food to feed itself in the
2008/9 season;
secondly, he stated that the reform programme was something
Africa could be
proud of and that what he had achieved was to "reclaim" the
land from the
whites.
We need to unpack these two claims and when we
do so, we will in fact
discern that instead of being something to be proud
of, the whole exercise
has been a sham, an attempt to hold onto power and
privilege after he and
his Party, Zanu PF, had lost all credibility and
majority support.
The original estimates by the FAO put maize production
in the past season at
1,2 million tonnes. This was after what has been
described as a near perfect
season. The Ministry of Agriculture followed up
with even higher estimates
and stated that "we have grown enough food to
feed the country". No one
believed them and other commercial sources said
production had been only
marginally higher than the 400 000 tonnes grown in
2007/8. The reality is
that maize has already started to disappear from
local markets just three
months after the reaping season started and this
suggests that the
pessimists (realists) were about right.
This means
that for the third year in a row, Zimbabwe has grown less than a
quarter of
its needs as far as maize is concerned. The outlook for wheat and
barley is
even worse - Zimbabwe will produce only 5 per cent of its
estimated needs
this winter even though there is ample water.
In almost every other
sector - beef, pig production, poultry, fruit and tea
and coffee, output is
down to less than 20 per cent of previous production
levels while sugar
output is down by 50 per cent even though a large
multinational company
dominates this industry. Cotton output is also down
and overall, the
production of small scale farmers has declined by 73 per
cent over the
levels achieved in the decade up to the year 2000.
This is surprising
because there has been no physical dislocation of
smallholder production.
However what the symbiotic reductions tell us is
that there was a very
strong synergy between small and large-scale farmers.
The key test for this
is the very large programme being carried out this
winter to give
smallholders their input requirements in the hope that they
will grow enough
maize to feed the country next year.
Then there is the issue of just what
happened in the Fast Track programme.
It is not generally appreciated that
over 80 per cent of all the affected
farms had been purchased after 1980 and
with the buyer holding a certificate
of no interest from the Ministry of
Agriculture, saying that it was not
required for resettlement. At the time,
the Constitution of Zimbabwe
guaranteed property rights and security of
tenure over freehold land.
This meant that those farmers were in fact
investing in Zimbabwe and
exhibiting considerable faith in the country and
its government.
Agriculture, was in fact one of the fastest growing sectors
of the
Zimbabwean economy from 1980 to 1997, slowing only when there were
severe
droughts and even then, able to feed the country.
So the first
aspect to this shameful exercise is that the farmers must be
seen as
investors, not settlers. These were not 1896 settlers taking land
from the
indigenous population. They came from every corner of the world and
a recent
list of affected foreigner's shows more than 26 nationalities.
Furthermore,
they were investing very large sums of capital - an estimated
US$2,5 billion
in the land they purchased and even more in the productive
assets and
equipment they were required to have in order to produce. They
bought 30 000
tractors, built or paid for 10 000 farm dams and held 2,5
million head of
cattle worth US$750 million.
They employed 350 000 workers and generated
nearly US$2 billion a year in
exports while at the same time supplying local
industry with 60 per cent of
its raw materials and being a major client for
commercial and banking
institutions and companies. 20 per cent were owned
and operated by a rapidly
growing black farmer elite that had bought into
the industry without any
special support measures and were achieving growing
respect.
But aside all that, the great majority of these investors were
not settlers
or Europeans or Americans, or Chinese, or Indian; they were
Africans. Men
and women, who had adopted Africa as their home, spoke local
languages, sent
their children to local schools and held no other
citizenship than their
local Zimbabwean citizenship.
These were the
people who were threatened, beaten, even killed when Zanu PF
decided in
March 2000 that they had been responsible for their crushing and
shock
defeat in the referendum. Any African leader who claims that these
were not
and are not Africans, is simply saying to the millions of people of
African
decent who now live in other countries that they can never be
comfortable or
safe in their new identities. What utter rubbish. If any
African leader
attempted to say to the tens of millions of people of colour
in Europe or
America that they are not British, or Canadian, they would be
lynched. But
that is what Mugabe is saying to those people who are white (or
brown) who
chose to make Zimbabwe their home and to invest in the
agricultural sector
rather than mining or industry or commerce.
Aside from this - the whole
exercise was unlawful, violated the Constitution
of the country and every
tenet of contract law. It violated basic human
rights and it undermined the
reputation of Africa as a safe and productive
destination for foreign
investment. In doing so Mugabe has done inestimable
damage to the welfare of
the whole continent and any African leader who
cannot see that is blind to
the realities of a globalised world.
P. Mangwende
http://www.cathybuckle.com
2nd October 2009
Dear Friends.
After
attending the UN General Assembly, you would think that Robert Mugabe
would
rush back to his beleaguered country but instead he went on to
Venezuela
where he attended a South America/Africa Summit hosted by his
friend Hugo
Chavez. The purpose of this Summit was, to quote Luis da Silva
the Brazilian
president, "to construct a new alliance, discover
opportunities and help
ourselves mutually," In reality, this Summit was
another opportunity for the
anti-western and anti-imperialist rhetoric that
we have become familiar with
over the years from the likes of Robert Mugabe,
Hugo Chavez, Luis da Silva
and the mercurial Libyan leader, Gadaffi. While
it's not difficult to
understand why former colonised countries feel
resentment at the west's
world domination, it is not so easy to see what
real benefit there is to
their people on the ground from all this hot air
issuing from the leaders'
mouths. Hugo Chavez, with his country's massive
oil revenues, claimed,
"Africa and South America are rich lands, yet the
people are poor because
they have been exploited. Let's not allow them to
keep exploiting and
ransacking our lands." For the outsider who may know
little of South
American politics, it is difficult to judge the accuracy of
this statement.
By 'them' and 'they' we assume that Chavez is referring to
global oil
companies who have moved in - presumably at his invitation - to
exploit his
oil wealth.
Zimbabweans are better able to judge when we hear Robert
Mugabe speak. "In
Africa," he said, "greater industrial development has been
difficult because
of a reliance on the very powers that industrialised us.
They do not want us
to see us industrialised." What evidence does Mugabe
have for such a claim?
How does it serve the west's interests to have Africa
permanently poor? As
with his ludicrous claims at the UN General Assembly
that western sanctions
are ruining his country, Mugabe offers no hard
evidence for such irrational
statements. It is merely populist rhetoric
designed to earn him more kudos
with his anti-western audience whose
attitude was summed up by Gadaffi when
he described the western powers as "a
small club of major powers still
trying to run the world on their terms." It
was Mugabe's remarks about his
country's natural resources that told us the
real reasons for being there in
Venezuela; "Zimbabwe could offer minerals
and agricultural products for oil
and technology," he said. Zimbabweans must
have reacted with hollow laughter
when they heard that their country had
agricultural products to offer! In a
week when figures revealed that his
Gushungo Company owns as many as a dozen
farms, many of them seized from
their former white owners, and the
agricultural sector is daily under attack
by Mugabe's own cronies, it's
difficult to understand what agricultural
products he could be referring to.
Grace Mugabe's dairy farms too have been
in the spotlight all week for
profiting from milk sales illegally purchased
by the Swiss owned Nestles
Company. What Zimbabweans know only too well is
that offers of agricultural
products in exchange for oil and technology are
more likely to benefit
Gushungo and his cronies than the masses of
Zimbabwean people.
While Mugabe was enjoying his time in the limelight
with like-minded
populist leaders in Venezuala, back home in Zimbabwe there
was the usual
mixture of good, bad and not-so-bad news. In an astonishing
development,
Jestina Mukoko was released from the threat of any further
prosecution on
'Banditry' charges. She no longer has that threat hanging
over her and that
is good news but it needs to be remembered that the
judgement by the Supreme
Court refers only to Jestina Mukoko and not to her
co-accused. The Supreme
Court's judgement appears on the surface to be an
assurance that an
individuals constitutional rights are protected by law but
on the ground
there is little evidence that this is the case. The police
continue to
ignore court orders as top army officers seize farms and prevent
the legal
owners from entering their properties despite court orders to the
contrary.
And with the appointment of the new Media Board there is worrying
evidence
of military involvement at every level of media management. All the
new
Media board are Zanu PF loyalists and unbelievably, it is the hapless
and
hopeless Tafataona Mahosa who now heads the Broadcasting authority of
Zimbabwe in charge of issuing licences. There is little hope that the media
in Zimbabwe will be free any time soon from political interference. It
remains firmly in Zanu PF hands and the military are present in force to
ensure that Mugabe's Zimbabwe remains his own personal fiefdom. With no real
power, as the MDC's designate Deputy Minister of Agriculture admitted this
week, it is hard to see where real change will come from.
Yours in the
(continuing) struggle PH.