Tendai Ruben Mbofana
Zimbabwe’s judiciary finds itself at a critical crossroads, where the principles of justice are increasingly overshadowed by political influence and systemic flaws.
The country’s justice system appears to have become a tool of political repression, where magistrates’ courts consistently deny bail to perceived opponents of the regime, convict them on dubious charges, and later have their rulings overturned by the High Court.
This pattern has raised serious concerns about the role of magistrates in perpetuating injustice, particularly when their judgments are later dismissed on the basis that there was never a prima facie case or that the law used to convict did not even exist.
The recurring nature of such cases suggests either a serious lack of competence or a judiciary that has been compromised to serve political interests.
Several high-profile cases have exposed this disturbing reality.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
Job Sikhala, a veteran opposition leader, was arrested in 2022 on politically motivated charges and denied bail for nearly two years.
The magistrates’ court justified his prolonged detention on grounds that defied legal logic, despite his right to bail under the constitution.
In 2024, he was found guilty of both “inciting public violence” and “publishing false statements prejudicial to the state”.
It was only after an appeal to a higher court that these convictions were overturned, further reinforcing suspicions that magistrates operate under political instructions rather than legal principles.
Similarly, prominent journalist Hopewell Chin’ono had to seek the High Court’s intervention on charges of publishing falsehoods, as the Magistrate’s Court pursued a case based on a law that had already been declared unconstitutional.
High Court judge Justice Charehwa ruled that the charge, brought under Section 31 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, could not stand.
Let’s remember that the law criminalizing “publishing false statements prejudicial to the state” was struck off Zimbabwe’s statute books way back on 9 October 2014.
Jacob Ngarivhume faced a similar ordeal when, in 2023, he was convicted by a magistrate’s court for ostensibly “inciting violence” after he called for peaceful protests against corruption.
The High Court later overturned his conviction, ruling that it was based on flawed legal reasoning as there was never a prima facie case.
These cases are not isolated incidents but part of a broader trend where magistrates appear to make decisions that align with the interests of the ruling party rather than uphold justice.
This crisis raises the fundamental question of why magistrates make such flawed rulings that are so frequently overturned.
One of the key reasons is political pressure.
Unlike High Court judges, who have more security of tenure, magistrates are more susceptible to influence from those in power.
The government, through the Judicial Service Commission, has significant control over the appointment and promotion of magistrates, creating a system where judicial officers may feel compelled to issue rulings that serve political ends.
The stark difference in academic and professional qualifications between magistrates and High Court judges plays a crucial role in how the judiciary functions—and, in some cases, how it is manipulated.
Magistrates, who preside over the lower courts, only require a law degree and can be appointed with little to no experience.
This makes them more susceptible to external influence, particularly from those in authority, as they lack the legal and professional independence that comes with years of practice.
In contrast, High Court judges must have at least seven years of legal experience, making them more seasoned and less likely to bow to political pressure.
This disparity in qualifications and experience helps explain why the regime prefers to use the Magistrates’ Courts as tools for political persecution—where less experienced and more easily controlled magistrates are entrusted with cases that could have significant political consequences.
Fear of career consequences, including possible reassignment or dismissal, can lead magistrates to rule in ways that favor the state.
This lack of judicial independence is further exacerbated by a culture of impunity, where magistrates who repeatedly issue legally unsound judgments face no professional consequences.
Magistrates who issued controversial rulings, which clearly defied sound legal reasoning, are still serving at the court.
There has never been any investigation into why these magistrates issue such grossly flawed judgments, nor has any disciplinary action been taken against them.
Another contributing factor is the lack of transparency in the appointment process.
In Zimbabwe, magistrates are appointed through an opaque system controlled by the Judicial Service Commission, without public scrutiny or competitive selection.
In contrast, High Court judges undergo public interviews, which at least provide a layer of accountability.
Because magistrates are selected without a transparent process, political considerations can often take precedence over legal competence.
This allows for the appointment of individuals who may lack the necessary skills to interpret the law independently or who are more willing to serve political interests over justice.
Beyond the issue of wrongful convictions, there is also the question of what happens to those who are unjustly imprisoned for prolonged periods only to be later acquitted.
Zimbabwe does not have clear legal mechanisms for redress.
In other countries, wrongfully imprisoned individuals can seek compensation through ex gratia payments, damages for loss of liberty, and financial restitution for economic losses suffered during incarceration.
In Zimbabwe, there is no formalized process for compensation, leaving those who were unjustly imprisoned to suffer without any form of redress.
This lack of accountability creates an environment where the state can weaponize the judiciary against political opponents without any consequences.
The absence of a compensation mechanism means that those who lose months or even years of their lives due to wrongful imprisonment are simply expected to move on, with no restitution for the injustice suffered.
Job Sikhala’s ongoing lawsuit against the Zimbabwean government for wrongful detention and prosecution directly reinforces this challenge regarding the lack of clear redress mechanisms for those unjustly imprisoned.
While the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantees the right to seek compensation for wrongful arrest and detention, the reality is that such legal action is often met with bureaucratic hurdles, judicial delays, and high litigation costs.
Even though Sikhala has the constitutional right to sue, his case is likely to face prolonged court processes, given the judiciary’s susceptibility to political influence.
Additionally, compensation cases against the state are rarely successful or fairly settled, as the government often resists accountability or takes an unreasonably long time to fulfill court rulings.
This highlights the weaponization of the judiciary, where political prisoners may eventually be acquitted but remain without adequate restitution for lost time, income, and personal suffering.
Sikhala’s lawsuit also underscores the lack of automatic compensation mechanisms, unlike in other jurisdictions where wrongful imprisonment leads to state compensation without victims having to engage in lengthy legal battles.
In Zimbabwe, individuals like Sikhala must take on the financial and emotional burden of suing the state, making justice difficult to attain.
Ultimately, his case exemplifies how the absence of clear, enforceable redress laws leaves victims of wrongful detention vulnerable, discouraging others from challenging state abuses.
The consequences of this lack of redress are far-reaching.
First, it encourages the continued abuse of the judiciary as a political weapon.
Knowing that there are no consequences for wrongful arrests or convictions, the state has no incentive to stop using the courts to silence critics.
Second, it destroys lives.
Many of those who are wrongfully imprisoned lose their jobs, businesses, and social standing, while their families suffer financial and emotional distress.
Without a mechanism for compensation, they are left to rebuild their lives with no support.
Third, it erodes public confidence in the justice system.
When citizens see the law being applied selectively and without accountability, they lose faith in the courts as institutions of justice.
This, in turn, breeds disillusionment and a lack of trust in the rule of law.
To address these injustices, Zimbabwe must urgently introduce legal reforms.
A compensation law for wrongful imprisonment is essential.
Countries such as the UK and the US have established schemes where those wrongfully convicted or detained can claim damages from the state.
Zimbabwe should adopt similar legislation to ensure that victims of judicial abuse are compensated for their suffering.
Additionally, the process of appointing magistrates must be reformed to ensure transparency and public scrutiny.
Subjecting magistrates to public interviews, as is done with High Court judges, would help ensure that only qualified and independent individuals are appointed.
Furthermore, magistrates must be given greater security of tenure to insulate them from political pressure, and mechanisms should be put in place to hold them accountable for gross judicial errors.
Without these changes, Zimbabwe’s magistrates’ courts will remain extensions of the state’s repressive machinery, rather than institutions that uphold justice.
The judiciary must serve the people, not the political interests of those in power.
Ensuring the independence of magistrates, introducing compensation for wrongful convictions, and holding judicial officers accountable for flawed rulings are essential steps in restoring public confidence in Zimbabwe’s legal system.
Until such reforms are implemented, the magistrates’ courts will continue to be instruments of oppression rather than pillars of justice.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
COMMENTS