Home

Blog

Bio

Byo South Develop.

Photos

Reports

Archives

Links

Subscribe

Contact

It is 7 months since the divisive meeting of the MDC National Executive was held on the 12th October 2005. I have refrained from making public statements since then but am now of the view that the public have a right to know my perspective.

I have always believed that the two factions of the MDC, which emerged after the 12th October 2005 meeting, would never be as strong independent of each other as they were as one united party. Accordingly despite my deep concerns about certain issues, I felt it was necessary to try to reconcile the two factions and, failing that, to broker an amicable divorce between them. Moments after Morgan Tsvangirai walked out of the National Executive meeting on the 12th October I proposed that the remaining members of the Management Committee meet with him urgently to convey our continued support for him as MDC leader and our desire to accommodate his concerns.

During October, November and December I met with and wrote to MDC National Executive members in both factions urging them to refrain from making the vitriolic statements that so badly exacerbated the tensions between the two camps. For example, on the 12th November I met with Morgan Tsvangirai in Bulawayo and urged him to reign in those in his camp making divisive and inflammatory statements. On the 19th November I met with Gibson Sibanda, Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala. I urged Gibson Sibanda, likewise, to reign in those in his camp and I challenged Gift Chimanikire and Job Sikhala regarding some of the statements made by them. I repeatedly wrote and spoke to Eddie Cross during October, November and December about some of his newsletters which in my opinion exacerbated tensions between the two factions.

Zimbabwe Independent
David Coltart

ZIMBABWE has been afflicted with the terrible disease of endemic violence for over 150 years. Violence was used by Lobengula to suppress the Shona. It was used to colonise and after that to maintain minority rule, to overthrow white supremacy and, after Independence in 1980, to crush any possibility of legitimate political opposition.

The consequences of violence have been compounded by the flourishing culture of impunity. Those who commit horrendous crimes are not brought to book but prosper through their actions. It is now deeply embedded in our national psyche that political violence is acceptable and thus a norm. This inhibits economic development and creates terrible social problems.

What attracted me to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) from the beginning was its commitment to break this vicious cycle of violence and impunity by strictly adhering to non-violent means in pursuit of its political objectives. This was in sharp and welcome contrast to the governing Zanu PF’s promotion and glorification of violence, impunity and lawlessness.

So the attempt by some MDC youths to murder our director for security, Peter Guhu, in September 2004 at the Harvest House headquarters was deeply shocking. Even worse were subsequent revelations that senior MDC officials were either involved or sympathetic to the youths.

Any predisposition to violence can be controlled only by the manner in which it is handled by leaders. If not decisively dealt with, a culture of impunity develops and violence perpetuates itself even within bodies such as the MDC.

This is precisely what happened. Those responsible for violence were not disciplined and the same youths were used to seriously assault MDC staff members in May 2005. While these youths were expelled and one senior staff member dismissed in June 2005, the architects of the violence were not disciplined.

The Herald
By Tandayi Motsi

Fugitives from justice will soon have no hiding place as steps are being taken to harmonise legal systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC), in addition to strengthening domestic regulatory and supervisory systems for the monitoring and detection of organised crime in United Nations member-states

To this end, last Wednesday, the House of Assembly ratified two protocols that deal with crime in the region and abroad. The first was the SADC Protocol on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters that provides wide measures for legal co-operation between member-states in criminal matters. The second was the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime that promotes effective co-operation among member-states in combating and preventing cross-border organised crime. The UN convention provides for the extradition of suspects wanted in connection with organised crime, including corruption. Legislators from both sides of the House consented to the protocols. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Cde Patrick Chinamasa told the House that the SADC protocol would clear some of the legal hurdles that were faced when suspects wanted in connection with corruption fled to neighbouring countries. The minister said the document was central to efforts to harmonise legal systems in the region. He said any disputes between member-states in relation to mutual legal assistance would be referred to the tribunal for arbitration. Contributing to the debate, Mr David Coltart (MDC, Bulawayo South) said the opposition welcomed the SADC protocol. “Our law enforcement agencies have had problems in combating crime that goes beyond our borders. This is good and a welcome addition to our statutes,” said Mr Coltart. The SADC protocol provides for co-operation in investigations, prosecutions or proceedings relating to offences involving transnational organised crime and corruption. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct under investigation or prosecution in the requesting state constitutes an offence under the laws of the requested state. The protocol will go a long way in enabling Zimbabwean police to facilitate prosecution of suspects wanted in connection with corruption who have taken refuge in some SADC countries, particularly South Africa.

Letter from Tendai Biti (Secretary General, MDC) to David Coltart

Dear David

I refer to your letter dated 17th February 2006 addressed to President Morgan Tsvangirai in his personal and individual capacity, which letter as I have pointed out to you, I have not read or been privy too.

I am aware however from newspaper reports and articles that you are allegedly “attempting to broker a divorce” between and in the MDC.

In my view even assuming that there was wisdom, need and justification for such an effort, a point that I express no opinion on, I doubt that given the publicity thus far, there is any value or potential in the newspaper attempt referred above. In my experience genuine and bona fide dialogue will never take place in the public domain.

Furthermore in my experience any mediator must surely be impartial, independent and distant from a dispute. By any measure you are not distant or neutral, unless of course you are no longer a member of the MDC.

I trust that this puts paid to this issue.

Yours faithfully

Tendai Biti
MDC Secretary General

Reply from David Coltart to Tendai Biti (Secretary General, MDC)

Dear Tendai,

Thank you for your letter dated the 2nd May 2006.

I am not going to respond to the points you have made because even though I take issue with them, no purpose will be served in me doing so. Suffice it to say that my letter was written to Morgan Tsvangirai on the 20th February 2006, not the 17th February, in his official capacity as President of the MDC. In the circumstances it was not written to him in his personal capacity.

In a letter to the two factions, Coltart noted that some of the leaders are skeptical about his intentions and his ability to play a mediation role. So in this final segment, I first asked him about his personal views and where he stands.

COLTART: I think it’s inevitable, let me say this, I have been viewed with suspicion by both sides and that is an inevitable consequence of adopting the position that I have. I do have personal views which I am not going to reveal on this programme because it’s not the right time to reveal those views.

I recognise that time is running out and I will have to make a decision fairly shortly because it does appear as if my attempts to broker peace, to broker an amicable divorce, are not going to be achieved. But having said that, let me say that I believe both sides are to blame for this division. I am not going to apportion blame, or rank blame this evening but I think that ultimately it was a collective failure of leadership, it was a collective failure (and) both sides are to blame.
All of us are not immune from blame. I think it is a collective responsibility. I am responsible for this, and everyone should recognise that there are no saints in politics, there are no saints on either side. It has been a failure of both sides of the MDC, it’s been a failure of people in the media, it’s been a failure of people in civil society and human rights movement who have taken such absolutist views and positions, and in so doing, they have ensured that this dispute will become permanent, that this divorce will become permanent.