The ZIMBABWE Situation Our thoughts and prayers are with Zimbabwe
- may peace, truth and justice prevail.
Back to Index
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Saturday, 22 September, 2001, 05:43 GMT 06:43 UK
Violence blights Zimbabwe poll
Chenjerai Hunzvi
Chikomba was Chenjerai Hunzvi's seat
By Southern Africa correspondent Barnaby Phillips

Voters in a rural constituency in Zimbabwe go to the polls this weekend in an important test of the government's recent commitment to stop political violence.

But human rights groups in Zimbabwe say that the run-up to the vote has been marred by murder and intimidation.

President Robert Mugabe
Mugabe: Pledged to stop political violence
Two weeks ago in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, the Zimbabwean Government pledged to stop political violence and illegal farm invasions in return for a promise from the British authorities to help fund land reform.

But while the attention of the world has been elsewhere, both the violence and the invasions are continuing.

Murder and torture

This weekend's by-election is in Chikomba, south of the capital Harare.

The seat was held by Chenjerai Hunzvi, the leader of the pro-government war veterans, who died in June.

Mr Hunzvi was accused of using violence and intimidation to win his seat.

But a coalition of Zimbabwean human rights groups say that the political climate in Chikomba has scarcely improved since his death.

In a report released on Wednesday they allege that one opposition supporter has been murdered and several others tortured in the run-up to the poll.

They also say that the leading opposition candidate has received death threats.

The Abuja agreement was meant to restore peace to Zimbabwe, but there is no sign yet of an improvement

Back to the Top
Back to Index
From the Daily News



Mugabe thrives on violence, says MDC

9/22/01 8:13:24 AM (GMT +2)


Luke Tamborinyoka

MORGAN Tsvangirai, the MDC president, said yesterday his party would tell the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Brisbane, Australia, that Mugabe was promoting violence and would not stop the lawlessness in the country.



Tsvangirai said the relentless violence, despite the Abuja agreement, showed that Mugabe was not committed to peace.
“We will convey the message that Mugabe likes to see continued lawlessness and anarchy. That is how he survives; he survives on violence,” said Tsvangirai.

“He (Mugabe) is not likely to stop the lawlessness. Zanu PF has been sponsoring violence in Makoni West and in Chikomba despite their pledge for peace in Abuja.”

Tsvangirai was speaking soon after returning yesterday from visits to several countries.
He arrived aboard a South African Airways flight but said his trip was part of the MDC’s efforts to lobby the international community on the problems in Zimbabwe.

He said the international community had placed too much faith in the Abuja agreement, “which Mugabe continues to violate with impunity”. Tsvangirai said there was no hope for a free and fair presidential election. He said Mugabe must adopt an approach that engages all stakeholders to restore the rule of law and revive the economy.

“We only want the international community to be appraised of the real crisis in Zimbabwe. Even though land remains an issue in Zimbabwe, the real crisis is the crisis of governance,” said Tsvangirai.

He welcomed the initiative by the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) heads of state who were in the country two weeks ago to assess the crisis.

“It was a good and bold initiative by Sadc. What is important is for the other party to realise we are all patriotic Zimbabweans and we do not need outsiders for us to speak to each other,” he said. Tsvangirai met face-to-face with Mugabe for the first time in two years during the visit of the Sadc heads of state in Harare.

He said his party impressed upon the Sadc heads of state that land was not the real crisis, although it was a problem that needed to be solved.

The State-controlled Herald yesterday said Tsvangirai was in Canberra, Australia and would not come back until after the Chogm summit. The newspaper said the MDC was being funded by ex-Rhodesians and would send youths to demonstrate against Mugabe in Brisbane.

Tsvangirai said he would not comment much on the allegations, which he described as “hogwash”. “How can I be in Canberra when I am here? The newspaper can speculate about the ex-Rhodies and our youths but speculation is not fact,” said Tsvangirai.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
From the Daily News

Land case adjourned to allow negotiations

9/22/01 8:09:49 AM (GMT +2)


Staff Reporter

THE Supreme Court yesterday adjourned until next Wednesday the case in which
the government is seeking an order to continue acquiring land for
resettlement to allow for further negotiations between the government and
the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU).

Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku agreed to adjourn the matter after the
CFU, through Advocate Adrian de Bourbon, applied for the constitutional case
to be set aside to give the two parties another chance to negotiate.

The request by De Bourbon came after Chidyausiku had remarked that a way
forward should be found through dialogue.
Chidyausiku said: “I think both parties should take a step back and give way
for negotiation. We are agreeable to standing down the matter provisionally
to Wednesday to allow for the government and CFU to dialogue. Should you
need more time the court is more than happy to give you that time as this is
a way forward.

“I hope that the dialogue will lead to something positive. If there is a
role that this court can play we are in a position to do so. I hope that
this is the best opportunity for the first positive step forward.”
Soon after the decision by the full Supreme Court Bench, David Hasluck, CFU’
s spokesman, held a Press conference at the union’s headquarters in Harare.

Hasluck said: “The CFU is not against the land resettlement programme. The
Abuja agreement has all the components to resolve the land issue. It is a
very useful instrument to resolve the case. I hope the union can strike a
meaningful agreement with the government in resolving the matter.
“We must, however, remember that the litigation is still before the court.”

Hasluck said he would approach Patrick Chinamasa, the Minister Justice,
Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Joseph Made, the Minister of Lands,
Agriculture and Rural Resettlement to find an amicable solution to the
compulsory acquisition of land.

Reacting to Bharat Patel, the Deputy Attorney-General’s remarks that
Augustine Chihuri, the Police Commissioner, had substantially restored law
and order in the country, De Bourbon said: “It’s either the rule of law and
order is there or it’s not there. Chihuri cannot say he has partially
restored it. The government is not interested in restoring law and order.
Operations on over 900 farms have been brought to a halt. Police reaction to
violence on farms has been next to nothing.”
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Daily News Leader Page

A never-ending revolution

9/22/01 8:12:06 AM (GMT +2)


Derek Carlsen

THE world renowned Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, was warned not to
write about the atrocities committed by the Marxists who were ruling the
Soviet Union.



The warning was, “If you bring up the past, you will lose an eye”.
His response was that if you ignored the past, you would lose both eyes.
Knowing the past and making sure the truth is known about the past, is a
vital ingredient in helping us and others to be wise in the present and
future.

One thing that becomes very clear when you compare our situation in Zimbabwe
today with the times Solzhenitsyn wrote about, is that there is nothing new
under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

At the forefront of Lenin’s grasp for power in 1917, was his deceptive
tactic of promising the peasants land and allowing them to ruthlessly seize
it on their own, telling them it belonged to them. This they duly did,
becoming a law unto themselves.

Furthermore, it wasn’t long before Lenin claimed his right to everything
that the peasants grew on their newly acquired land.
The revolution had been achieved, that is, Lenin had assumed the position of
supreme power in the nation and that was all that mattered to him the
peasants had served their purpose.

Whatever promises Lenin needed to make in order to attain his ambitions, or
whatever promises needed to be broken later to secure his position didn’t
matter, he did whatever was necessary to maintain his grasp on power nothing
else had any value or virtue.

Lenin correctly perceived that he needed the peasants’ support if he was to
retain his precarious hold on power and so he gave them what they wanted,
even though it was diametrically opposed to the teachings of Marxism.

Why did he do this? Because once he had consolidated his power, he knew he
could take it back whenever he liked. How, one might ask, could Lenin so
easily do a complete turnaround and trample all over the principles he had p
reviously espoused (that is, that under Marxism, only the state can own the
land)?

In order to justify his reversal, Lenin appealed to the Marxist philosophy
of dialectical materialism, which holds contradiction to be the central
point in dialectics and is, therefore, at the very heart of Communism.

Since contradiction was at the core of Lenin’s philosophy of life, when he
acted in complete contradiction to his own previous views, he merely
attributed this to how life, by necessity, must work.

Such a philosophy is very convenient for oppressors, for it allows them
complete freedom in their actions and policies, whereby they can “justify”
(in the name of dialectics) anything they have to say and do in order to
retain their hold on power.

Though, as Lenin’s ruthlessness quickly made clear, the “privilege” of using
contradiction in this way is reserved for the elite leaders alone everything
is remade in accordance with the desires of the rulers and for the express
purpose of them staying in control.

We see this absolute control used to redefine the much used term, “the
dictatorship of the proletariat” which in theory meant that the masses were
to be the rulers of the nation (this is the Marxists’ selling point, in
other words, the way they try to make their philosophy attractive to the
masses).

In practice, however, it was/is always “the dictatorship of the Party”. The
Party assumes that whatever it imagines, that is what the people want, thus
the Party’s wishes are said to be the same as if they had actually been
given a direct mandate from “the people”.

Eventually, what materialises and is established, is a situation whereby
what the Party wants, is determined merely by the wishes of a few or even
one person, thus in reality, this supreme goal of “the dictatorship of the
proletariat”, becomes in actuality, the dictatorship of the one. There is
nothing new under the sun!

What we see with Lenin is also true in every other case, namely, that when a
political party resorts to violence in an attempt to hold onto power, they
confirm by these actions, that they are only supported by a minority of the
people.

The only avenues open to power-hungry minorities, are deception and
violence, which they use with relish and great personal satisfaction.
Despite the fact that Lenin nationalised the produce from the land he had
earlier “freely given” to the peasants, some of the more hardworking and
enterprising peasants were still able to do more than just survive.

However, their success as farmers made them into a class that was distinct
from the rest of the peasants who worked the land, and in time they were
labelled “kulaks”.

The kulaks were now called the exploiters and were blamed for all the
economic problems the nation and individuals were enduring which was music
to the ears of their envious neighbours. Marxism, ultimately
promotes and institutionalises envy and covetousness.

The term kulak was never defined, however, if you hired labourers, or owned
two horses or had a nice house you probably would be called a kulak, that
is, if the revolutionary cause needed to define you as such.

Why would the “people’s revolution” call people kulaks? Because the only way
Marxism can survive is if it perpetuates a never-ending revolution and to
have a revolution you need to have an enemy who can be blamed and then
eradicated with the consent of the rest of the nation.

A Marxist country’s hardships and gross inefficiencies are never the fault
of the philosophy of Marxism or of their greedy leaders, no, the fault is
always the kulaks whoever or whatever they might be.

Once this is done, war is declared against them (the perpetual revolution),
though what is always promised, is that with the eradication of this
particular group, the revolution will finally be completed and then everyone
will have whatever they desire from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need”.

In Zimbabwe, our elite rulers have adopted the slogan, “Land is the economy
and the economy is land”. The final revolution, we are told, is now taking
place whereby the landless will be given their own, rightful land. Is it
mathematically possible for every Zimbabwean to own productive land? Maybe,
we will need to colonise some land from neighbouring countries in order to
fulfil this “dream”?

Those who don’t see what’s happening in our day, will reap the reward the
Russian people reaped in Lenin’s day and become enslaved to a perverse,
greedy and severely intolerant elite group of leaders.
Think about these things!

Copyright Muse Time July/August 2001
Back to the Top
Back to Index
From the Daily News

Police, army seal off campus following UZ student unrest

9/22/01 8:03:56 AM (GMT +2)


Zhean Gwaze and Mduduzi Mathuthu

ARMED riot police and members of the Zimbabwe National Army yesterday sealed
off the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) campus following student unrest on
Thursday during which the students wrecked property worth thousands of
dollars.

For the second successive day, there were no lectures yesterday as the
police forced the students, demonstrating over the late release of their
pay-outs, to stay on the Mt Pleasant campus while those going in were not
allowed to leave until after 4.30pm.
Four students accused of leading Thursday’s demonstration were suspended.
They were served with their letters of suspension, signed by the university’
s Pro-Vice Chancellor, Levy Nyagura yesterday. They are soon to appear
before the UZ’s disciplinary committee.

Tapera Kapuya, the Students’ Executive Council (SEC)’s secretary-general,
Madoc Chivasa, the secretary for transport, Tungamirai
Nharo, the acting vice-president and the Zimbabwe National Students Union
secretary-general, Tinashe Chiredza were suspended.

Their suspension comes barely two weeks after the SEC president, Innocent
Mupara was expelled for allegedly leading a series of violent student
demonstrations last month, including a raid on the dean of students’ house.

Police maintained a heavy presence at the campus and intermittently hurled
teargas canisters into the students’ residences forcing students to flee. At
least two female students sustained minor injuries during the stampede.

Phillip Pasirayi, the Zinasu information and publicity secretary yesterday
condemned the suspension of the students.
He said: “Their suspension is tantamount to a declaration of war. It
demonstrates the insensitivity of the UZ administration. Instead of
resolving the students’ problems, they answer us through suspensions. We are
prepared to fight back.”

However, the UZ board chairman, Gideon Gono yesterday said they were not
moved by the students’ threats as the university operated within laid down
rules and said they would not hesitate to get rid of “gangsters”.
“We don’t condone violence of any nature and we will continue to take swift
action on those implicated in violence. We have told them before that their
problems can only be resolved through dialogue and it would not amuse the
taxpayers if we become lenient with violent gangsters,” Gono said.

He would not give estimates of the damaged property.
The students were yesterday engaged in a series of meetings with senior UZ
staff including the dean of students, Reverend Charles Mugariri and Nyagura
trying to resolve the impasse.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
From the Daily News

Policemen sent to jail for brutal assault on farm murder suspects

9/22/01 8:11:06 AM (GMT +2)


From Energy Bara in Masvingo

THREE policemen based at Chiredzi police station were yesterday each
sentenced to one year in jail for brutally assaulting farm workers suspected
of having murdered a colleague at Ruware Ranch.


Cleopas Nhamoinesu, 41, Fibion Mutengwa, 29, and Ephraim Shumbanhete, 42,
attached to the police crime prevention unit pleaded not guilty to the
charge of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm but were
convicted by Masvingo magistrate Godwin Chizhande.

The three will, however, serve an effective six months in jail after
Chizhande conditionally suspended half of the sentence.
Prosecutor Titus Taruvinga told the court that on 10 January 1996, the three
policemen were assigned to go to Ruware to investigate a suspected murder
case in which a farm worker Tiyani Mazokoro had mysteriously gone missing.

The State alleged that the police had received an anonymous call to the
effect that Petros Machaya, Adam Baru and Zvamuchaita Marombedze, all
workers at the ranch, had killed their colleague and disposed of his body.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Daily News Leader Page

Now for the difficult part: Implementing Abuja

9/22/01 8:10:45 AM (GMT +2)



Jonathan Moyo, the Minister of State for Information and Publicity, who is
better known for his pessimistic cynicism and caustic broadsides than for
his diplomatic finesse, started his week sounding positively upbeat for a
change following Zanu PF politburo’s endorsement of the Abuja agreement.



The politburo, he said, had emphasised that all parties to the agreement
should fulfil their commitments and honour their obligations to ensure the
success of the initiative. In addition, Moyo said, the politburo stressed
the need for urgency in implementing the agreement “if the momentum created
by Abuja is to be sustained”.

All parties with a stake in not just the Abuja agreement but in the
successful resolution of the Zimbabwean crisis as a whole, must have taken
issue at the fact that it was the Zanu PF executive council, the politburo,
and not Cabinet, to which President Mugabe went to seek approval of the
accord.

There is one thing that ought to be made crystal clear. When Foreign
Minister Stan Mudenge signed the agreement, he was doing so not on behalf of
a political party but of the government of Zimbabwe. And the government
comprises the President and his Cabinet.

Accordingly, if endorsement of the agreement was at all necessary which it
plainly wasn’t it could only have come from Mugabe and his Cabinet.

That little ceremony on Monday, embarked upon to buy extra time to set up,
on additional farms, more bases for Zanu PF militias so vital for
spearheading the terror campaign on which Mugabe’s re-election will either
be won or lost, was therefore a redundant exercise.

It makes everyone doubt seriously Mugabe’s sincerity when he declared on his
arrival from his “holiday” in Libya that he accepted the agreement “in
principle”.

However, for the sake of seeing to it that progress is made in that clearly
bold initiative, we all need to overlook that “endorsement” parody and join
Moyo in calling upon all parties to the agreement to make every effort “to
fulfil their commitments and honour their obligations”.

This is a God-sent opportunity for Mugabe to tactfully retreat from his most
unfortunate ego trip without appearing to surrender or losing too much face.
But, as is well-known, most things are easier said than done.

The President will, therefore, need to summon all the courage he can muster
and swallow a lot of his pride to put the process in motion to begin with.

First things, first. For the pact to be implemented successfully, it is
essential that the two main players in the process of solving the crisis are
absolutely clear as to what exactly it is they are expected to do and are
not labouring under false expectations, as already appears to be the case on
the Zimbabwean government’s side.

Equally important is the correct placement of priorities when setting out
the programme of action.
For example, it is to put the cart before the horse for the government, as
dictated to it by its party’s politburo, to take the stand that “the next
step to move the Abuja agreement forward is for the donor community,
co-ordinated by the United Nations Development Programme, with the
assistance of the government of Nigeria, in collaboration with the
government of Zimbabwe to prepare a project proposal for the purpose of
setting up a fund to support Zimbabwe’s land reform programme”.

The first step, the government Mugabe to be specific must take to kick-off
implementation of the Abuja agreement is to put out the raging fire that was
deliberately started by the State and which is hungrily consuming everyone
and everything in this country.

In short, Mugabe must restore the rule of law.
Spelt out in full it means: disbanding Joseph Chinotimba’s paramilitary
group of outlaws; ending all farm invasion; dismantling all “war veterans
bases” set up strategically throughout the country; removing all illegal
farm occupants; restoring the police force’s full autonomy; restoring the
independence of the Judiciary; ending the harassment of journalists and
political opponents and restoring Press freedom.

Only after we have done all these things can we start working on a project
proposal for the lawful acquisition of land and a planned, transparent and
orderly resettlement of deserving farmers.

The government should stop worrying about money.
The money, as Britain has always made it clear, is there. But it will only
be released once these conditions have been met.
It is a mammoth task but one which, given sufficient will, can be
accomplished fairly quickly.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Daily News Feature


Sidelining chiefs in land reform will cause wars

9/22/01 7:59:14 AM (GMT +2)



I NEVER saw my rather short mother walk as proud and tall as she did on the
day she was released from cells after she had been arrested for
demonstrating against the Land Apportionment Act.


We were to hear of her incarceration, ad nauseum, until she died several
years later.

She would proudly remind us, “Now, when I was arrested together with Mai
Sally Mugabe . . .”
Why did this simple, hard-working and highly disciplined mother of seven
take to the streets in a political demonstration? She was not really in
politics as such for her understanding of things political was rather
limited.

You see, my father was nearing retirement from work as a government
messenger. The couple was, therefore, planning to go back to Svosve communal
lands to live out their last days where they had grown up.
However, they were not happy to go to sandy and hilly Masikana Village,
where the Wakatama family had been forcibly moved to by the government in
1934.

They were moved to make way for white settlers.
Their dream was to go back and live in their ancestral home which they
called Manyimo, between the Matura hills, across the Whinimbe River.
When, therefore, Mai Sally Mugabe spoke at a political rally of the need for
people to claim their ancestral lands my mother did not need prodding.

She followed her into the streets and into the police cells.
Yes, land is what we fought for. I have yet to meet a black Zimbabwean who
believes that land should not be redistributed.
To tell the truth, I have also not yet met a white Zimbabwean who does not
believe that land should be redistributed to right the injustices of the
past.

The issue today is not about land but about how it should be redistributed.
Even Chief Jonathan Mangwende of Murehwa recently expressed, in Parliament,
misgivings about the whole land redistribution exercise.
It is being done in an unplanned, haphazard, unfair and violent way which is
not benefiting those in congested communal areas at all.

Most of the land is going to so-called war veterans and Zanu PF supporters.
It is being dangled before poor peasants as reward for political support.

The whole land redistribution exercise is fraught with danger because chiefs
have been sidelined when they should have been at the centre of the
redistribution.

According to our culture the chief is the custodian of land from whom each
village head and individual derives his right to till the soil. This right
was never denied any member of the ethnic group.
Even a stranger approaching the chief with a request for land, with a hoe as
a token, would be given right of occupation if his good character was
vouched for by the village head.

At present chiefs are members of land distribution committees which are not
functional at all.
People are grabbing land left and right without order of any kind.
Am I saying the whole country should be turned into a vast communal land
under the jurisdiction of chiefs.

No!
What I am saying is that those who want to live under chiefs in the communal
areas should be able to do so and those who would like to live outside of
tradition structures should also be able to do so.

Professor Stanlake and Dr Tommie-Marie Samkange explained this concept in
their book, Hunhuism or Ubuntuism.
They say, “It will be necessary for the majority rule government, in
accordance with the philosophy of hunhuism or ubuntuism, to continue to
provide Africans with land sufficient for their occupation, whether as
tribes or portions of tribes, which is suitable for their agricultural and
pastoral requirements.

In present day politics this means acquiring more land for African use.
It also means the concept of communal ownership of land basic to our culture
of ubuntu or hunhu and enshrined in the 1984 land policy, is not allowed to
be eroded by ideas of private ownership in the Tribal Trust Lands.

Those who want to own land privately have the rest of the country to carve
and buy to their hearts’ content.
In effect this means that after independence the government should have
designated and bought farms close to communal lands to ease congestion.
Chiefs should have been given the right to distribute their land according
to custom, with appropriate infrastructural and technical back up. After all
they, more than anyone else, know which families need to be resettled and
which don’t.

In order to bring more blacks into commercial farming, the government should
have then assisted qualified young people to access soft loans to buy
designated farms, and for capital expenditure.

I am sure the British would have donated the funds to buy land and to assist
those wishing to go into smallscale farming on a private basis.
This should have kept the social fabric of tribal society intact as well as
bringing blacks into private ownership of productive land.

The chaotic and shameful way land is being redistributed today goes against
the grain of our own traditional beliefs and culture. Already there are
rumblings of further violence and disunity.

The fast-track resettlement programme is splitting the nation along ethnic
lines as clashes erupt between people over resettled land.
My people resent very much the presence of people from elsewhere who were
settled on a farm adjacent to our own village, sidelining us the traditional
owners of that land.

Our chief was not even consulted in the whole exercise.
Serious clashes have been reported in Murehwa, Hwedza, Chakari, Sanyati and
parts of Matabeleland where settlers from other provinces were allocated
land ahead of local villagers.

In the Lowveld there have been ethnic tensions between the Shangaan and
Karanga.
The MP for the area, Aaron Baloyi, has actually been arraigned before the
courts for allegedly leading hordes of Shangaani clansmen in raids on newly
arrived settlers from Bikita and Gutu.

Looming inter-tribal wars can only be averted by allocating more land to
chiefs, in their areas, who in turn will then allocate it to their people
according to need.
If one chief has more people and less land than the next chief there are
traditional ways for chiefs to amicably deal with such situations. After all
they are all related by totem.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Zimbabwe Independent

Presidential pardon sets drug dealers free

Brian Hungwe
THE government has released international drug dealers under a presidential
pardon, the Zimbabwe Independent has learnt.

Among the drug dealers released in May on the advice of the Ministry of
Justice were the former South African Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) deputy
chief representative in Zimbabwe, Ramudi Michael Maphai, who was sentenced
to 18 years in prison in 1992 after the High Court found him guilty of
smuggling into the country 963kg of mandrax tablets worth $40 million.

Maphai had contraven-ed a section of the Drug and Allied Substances Control
Act and the judges found “overwhelming evidence” against him and his
co-accused, Chandrakan Ajmera, who also received a similar sentence.

Maphai was released on medical grounds due to an asthma problem. Ajemra, who
is suffering from diabetes, was also pardoned on medical grounds.

A Dutch national, Lucien Lafleur, jailed for possession of two tonnes of
mbanje, was also pardoned on medical grounds after persistent complaints of
chest pains.

Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa said he remembered recommending the
release of Ajmera whose pardon he said was granted on medical grounds and
age.

“I will have to check on all the relevant information and come back to you,”
Chinamasa said earlier this week. He has yet to furnish details of the
pardon granted to Maphai and Lafleur.

Ajmera was aged 45 when he was incarcerated in 1992. Lawyers this week said
it was unfair for the government to release the drug dealers on perceived
medical grounds when criminals convicted of petty crimes were dying in
prisons on a daily basis.

ZimRights director Munyaradzi Bidi reacted with revulsion to the release,
declaring that drug dealing had caused untold suffering, money laundering,
violent crimes, corruption and murder.

“Is it in the national interest for the international drug dealers to walk
out the doors of the jails and return to their drug dealing ways?” Bidi aske
d.

“The government cannot be allowed to pardon certain classes of criminals
that include international drug dealers,” he said.

“We know that there is a legal way of pardoning such criminals but that
should stop and jails are there to keep and rehabilitate such criminals
until they serve their sentences to the full as per the judgements,” Bidi
said.

“The government is indirectly sanctioning drug trafficking. We need to get
rid of such kind of criminals by putting them behind bars, not give in on
petty medical grounds when they will have created untold suffering amongst
innocent children whose future is now bleak because of drug abuse,” he said.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
BBC

Saturday, 22 September, 2001, 15:08 GMT 16:08 UK

Peaceful start to Zimbabwe poll



Voters in Zimbabwe's rural constituency of Chikomba have begun voting in an
important test of the government's recent commitment to stop political
violence.
Contesting the two-day election are Bernard Makokove of the ruling Zimbabwe
African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Oswald Ndanga of the
opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).

The French news agency AFP reported long queues outside polling-stations and
said the atmosphere was quiet.


But human rights groups in Zimbabwe say the run-up to the vote, which is
being held to replace the late leader of the country's war veterans,
Chenjerai Hunzvi, was marred by murder and intimidation.


Two weeks earlier, in the Nigerian capital Abuja, the Zimbabwean Government
pledged to stop political violence and illegal farm invasions in return for
a promise from the British authorities to help fund land reform.

But there has been no end to either the violence or the occupations.

Murder and torture

Hunzvi, who died of suspected malaria this summer, had been accused of using
violence and intimidation to win his seat in Chikomba.

But, as the BBC's Southern Africa Correspondent Barnaby Philips reports, a
coalition of Zimbabwean human rights groups say that the political climate
there has scarcely improved since his death.

In a report released on Wednesday, they allege that one opposition supporter
was murdered and several others tortured in the run-up to the poll.

They also say that the leading opposition candidate received death threats.
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Mugabe Warns White Farmers Not to Attack Black Land Demonstrators

VOA News
22 Sep 2001 02:30 UTC


Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has warned white commercial farmers
against evicting or attacking thousands of his supporters who have seized
land under a controversial land reform program.

Mr. Mugabe said Friday there was what he called a very dangerous trend where
some white farmers are attacking land demonstrators and resisting settlers.

Speaking at a meeting of executive members of his ruling ZANU-PF party, Mr.
Mugabe said resistance will have to stop unless commercial farmers are ready
for a conflict situation.

The Zimbabwean leader also said his government would watch developments
closely to see if resistance by white commercial farmers amounts to a
resurgence of military structures of the colonial period.

Two weeks ago, Mr. Mugabe agreed to a Commonwealth proposal in Abuja,
Nigeria, to curb violent takeovers of white farms in return for a pledge
from Britain to fund a Zimbabwean land redistribution plan.

Some information for this report provided by Reuters
Back to the Top
Back to Index
Zimbabwe: Security at airports stepped up after attacks on US

September 22, 2001 12:37pm


09/22/2001

Text of report by Zimbabwean radio audio web site on 22 September

The Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe [CAAZ] is stepping up security at
all airports in the country in the aftermath of terror attacks on the United
States.


It says the measures are not only in the interest of passenger safety but
will also address declining air travel which the authority says has seen the
number of visitors to Zimbabwe decline drastically over the past week.

Karikoga Kaseke, acting chief executive of the authority, says some of the
security measures to be taken include closer surveillance of all people that
go in and out of airports. He says with immediate effect no knives of any
sort would be allowed onto aircraft.

Airlines will from now on only be allowed to use plastic cutlery. These are
among the many measures CAAZ discussed yesterday in a meeting with
representatives of all airlines that fly into Zimbabwe to review the
security situation at home and abroad.

Mr Karikoga says although many of the airlines such as British Airways are
grounding aircraft and axing certain routes, there has been no [break in
transmission] their bound flights.

Source: ZBC Radio 3 audio web site, Harare, in English 0400 gmt 22 Sep 01
Back to the Top
Back to Index