Statement regarding the unlawful detention, denial of access and torture of Save Zimbabwe leaders and activists

The MDC expresses its deep concern and outrage regarding the events of the last few days in which political leaders, civic leaders and supporters have been arrested, tortured and denied access to lawyers and medical treatment. The murder by state agents of Gift Tandare marks another very disturbing development and is condemned.

It is important to recall that the opposition has a demonstrable record in the last 7 years of holding peaceful political rallies, and the church even more so. It is Zanu PF that has a record of violence. Accordingly the police general ban on political meetings for 3 months is unjustifiable in the first place.

However the general ban on all political meetings throughout Zimbabwe is also unlawful. As bad as POSA is, it does not allow the police to issue widespread banning orders as it has sought to do. Notwithstanding the provisions of POSA, the Zimbabwean Constitution is quite clear regarding the right that Zimbabweans have to demonstrate peaceably. POSA is clear that the police are obliged to consider each case on its merits and it cannot lightly disregard the fundamental right contained in the Constitution for people to demonstrate and meet peaceably. What the police have in effect done is issue a general ban reminiscent of the State of Emergency which ended in 1990. There is no declared State of Emergency and to that extent the police have acted completely unlawfully in purporting to issue a general ban as they have done.

Even if the regime is of a mind to argue that it does have this general power it should be reminded that the provisions of POSA used by the ZANU PF regime to deny people fundamental constitutional rights are fascist laws no different to those used by the white minority regime in terms of LOMA. They were bad laws then and are no different now. LOMA did not prevent the legitimate demands of the people from being realised and in the same way POSA will not succeed ultimately in denying the people their rights. The sooner the regime realises that these laws will not solve the Zimbabwean crisis the better. The regime is advised to repeal POSA and then sit down with all Zimbabweans to negotiate a solution to the calamitous situation afflicting our nation. The situation has now been greatly exacerbated by the murder of Gift Tandare, the unlawful arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and many other leaders and activists.

The denial of access by lawyers to those detained and the reports that many of those detained have been severely assaulted is a very serious development. These two breaches of rights usually go hand in hand – when lawyers can’t get in to see their clients law enforcement agencies the world over feel they have licence to torture. That is the very reason why the United States Supreme Court last year, and very correctly, ruled that the denial of access to lawyers in Guantanamo Bay offended the American Constitution.

Sadly this practice is routine in Zimbabwe and has been for decades. In September last year the practice was employed against Trade Union leaders. Our demands made then that the practice end were ignored. This practice must stop immediately and those responsible for both the denial of access and torture must be identified, rooted out of whatever state agency they belong to and prosecuted.

A specific call is made on the Attorney General to investigate these reports of denial of access and torture. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to ensure that Zimbabwe’s Constitution is obeyed by all, especially by state agents and the police in particular. We expect that he will call for an urgent investigation into these allegations and that he will vigorously prosecute those responsible for these outrages if the allegations are found to be correct.

When a similar call was made last September the Attorney General ignored that call. No prosecutions have been brought by the Attorney General against those responsible, despite video tape evidence clearly showing the identity of those responsible for the unlawful assaults and torture. If the Attorney General ignores our demands made again now he will be held personally responsible. It is well known that impunity fosters torture; if those responsible for torture are not brought to book they are bound to torture again. It is only the Attorney general who has the Constitutional power to bring the culprits to book.

In any democratic country if subordinates are found guilty of serious human rights allegations the Minister under whom they fall take responsibility and resign. This is not the first time that the police, CIO and youth brigade in Zimbabwe have been accused of torture – there have been persistent reports (many backed by irrefutable medical evidence) over the last few years of these agencies being engaged in acts of torture.

Article 2 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment states:

“Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”.

It is clear to all reasonable people that the ZANU PF regime has failed to comply with this basic international obligation. In particular the Minister of Home Affairs, Minister Kembo Mohadi, has failed to prevent torture being used by the police. He is deeply aware of the issue because it has been raised on several occasions with him in Parliament. He should also be acutely empathetic because he himself suffered torture at the hands of this regime in the 1980s. In all the circumstances we call upon him to resign.

It would appear as if the Zanu PF regime is prepared to defy the world and use whatever means to frustrate legitimate expressions of opposition to its misrule of Zimbabwe. The torture and denial of access by lawyers and doctors to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and the rest of our colleagues, coming so soon after the similar treatment meted out to Trade Union leaders last year is a clear sign that Robert Mugabe himself and other Zanu PF leaders feel they can act with impunity.

With this in mind the ZANU PF regime is reminded that “torture is an international crime over which international law and the parties to the Torture Convention have given universal jurisdiction to all courts wherever the torture occurs”. We are keeping records of those responsible for these heinous acts and will use all the means at our disposal to bring the culprits to book.

All those responsible for these outrages over the last few days must understand that they are on notice – these acts will not be forgotten and we will use the full force of international law in future to bring all those responsible to justice.

It is now time for those Zanu PF members who quietly disagree with what is happening and other regional leaders to speak out against this vile conduct. Mere silence amounts to condonation.

Martin Luther King once said

“Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice”.

That is precisely what we are doing and as sure as day follows night a real order of justice will be brought to Zimbabwe. But it is difficult for those struggling within Zimbabwe to do so alone. Apartheid was not ended solely through the efforts of South African patriots; it was achieved through their concerted efforts which were supported by massive international support and action. That support and action has largely been missing and the international community has allowed Zimbabwe to degenerate into the grave crisis it is in today.

It is high time the international community acted to assist those trying to bring about a new order of democracy in Zimbabwe. There has been far too much talk and far too little action from the international community. What is required is urgent, vigorous, proactive diplomatic activity by Southern African nations in conjunction with international institutions such as the UN and EU.

David Coltart MP
Shadow Minister of Justice

13th March 2007

Posted in Statements | 4 Comments

Transcript of ‘Hot Seat’ Interview with David Coltart, Raymond Majongwe, and Arnold Tsunga

This is a two-part transcript of a SW Radio Africa Hotseat Interview between ‘Hot Seat’ journalist Violet Gonda, and Raymond Majongwe of the Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe, David Coltart of the Mutambara MDC, and lawyer Arnold Tsunga

Part 1: Broadcast 20 February 2007

Violet Gonda:
Zimbabwe has been witnessing a wave of strikes by many groups including junior doctors and teachers demanding better working conditions in a country which now has the highest inflation rate in the world and the fastest shrinking economy outside a war zone. The country has also been seeing a spate of spontaneous demonstrations from several pressure groups and the opposition. To discuss the issue of the growing discontent within society, we welcome on the programme ‘Hot Seat’ Raymond Majongwe who is the Secretary General of the Progressive Teachers Union of

Zimbabwe, David Coltart, a legal expert and member of the Mutambara MDC and Arnold Tsunga, the Director of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. Welcome on the programme.

All: Thank you Violet. Good evening Violet. Thank you.

Violet: Now let me start with Raymond Majongwe, what are your thoughts on the clashes between the police and the people this past week?

Raymond Majongwe :
Apparently I think nobody must apologise. People in Zimbabwe are demanding their space back that has been taken over by both the politicians as well as the Military and the Police. And, if we really sit down on our laurels and think that we will be able to reclaim that space without blood, without sweat, then we will be fooling ourselves.

Violet:
Now, we have also seen scores of people getting arrested for exercising their rights. We have seen MDC supporters, WOZA activists, NCA, Students, now, is it not also the case that you were arrested about a week ago for saying teachers earn the equivalent of 17 bananas a day?

Raymond: Ya, apparently I think I have no apology to make. 17 bananas was actually an overstatement. Teachers are actually earning four and a half bananas a day and I think we cannot tolerate and allow that to continue and I think somebody has to say the buck stops here. Because, ultimately, the most important factor and the most important thing is that the world over, and citizens of this particular country must know that when ZANU PF say they liberated this country, it does not mean that they are going to take this country and run it like their own tuck-shop or say that everybody must shut up because they took us from the dungeons. That must not be allowed. We must, as citizens, be allowed to freely express, freely question and be citizens of this particular country.

Violet:
And, Mr Tsunga, people are now beginning to retaliate. We saw how the WOZA women, in defiance, were throwing back tear gas canisters that had been thrown at them by the Police and also this past week we saw how Students and the NCA activists and also Opposition activists fighting back and some also assaulted police officers in Harare. Now, has Zimbabwe, has the nation now reached a tipping point?

Arnold Tsunga: Ya, you see the problem of the heavy handedness on the part of the police in dealing with peaceful protests by people on legitimate concerns about the economy, about the social-political situation in our country, it has reached a stage where we were beginning to predict that at some point people will not always be sitting and waiting to be attacked. So, I think the way to sum it up, there’s no better way than to look at what Tibaijuka (UN envoy) said in her report when she was commenting about Operation Murambatsvina. She said that the State in Zimbabwe in particular the Police, they need to show respect for the Rule of Law before they can credibly begin to ask citizens to in fact comply with the Rule of Law. So you are actually beginning to see that her prediction that in the absence of the State showing genuine commitment to the Rule of Law then you are going to see a situation where the culture of impunity, the culture of lawlessness, the culture of violence begins to permeates and pervades the whole of society.

Violet: We’ll come back to the issue of the Rule of Law, but, Mr Coltart, what are your thoughts on the unfolding events in Zimbabwe and also what is the mood of the people.

David Coltart : Well Violet we warned about this many years ago, going right the way back to the early 90’s. We said that if the ZANU PF regime refuses to respect fundamental human rights, they refuse to respect the democratic process; the right of people to choose their own government, their leaders through peaceful democratic means, that ultimately, people will lose faith in the democratic process, and that is what we are seeing happening in Zimbabwe. We have had a succession of elections stolen since 2000 and we’ve seen how the regime has responded by imposing oppressive legislation and oppressive policies on the people of Zimbabwe and now the tension is rising. I liken this to a pot on the fire. You’ve got this pot on the fire with ZANU PF stoking the fire all the time through inflation, through corruption, through mismanagement, and instead of allowing the contents of the pot just to bubble and simmer they are actually putting a lid on, and the lid is through this oppressive Police action, through trying to suppress the legitimate rights of people and this has resulted in this massive build up of pressure and tension in the country and it is inevitable that this will explode. If the regime does not allow this pressure to be released through allowing people to vent their emotions and their feelings through legitimate peaceful demonstration, it is inevitable, unfortunately that this will unravel and spin out of control. So, I fear that this tension will increase and that if the Regime does not sit down and genuinely negotiate with civil society, with labour leaders, with all political parties, with the Churches to work a way out of this mess, that Zimbabwe could explode.

Violet:
Also you know, the Police defied a High Court order this week, or this weekend rather, and blocked a rally organised by the Tsvangirai MDC and they also disrupted a public meeting organised by your party in Bulawayo. Has Zimbabwe officially become a police state?

David Coltart:
Well, what was very worrying about this weekend was the statement made by the Minister of Home Affairs, Kembo Mohadi to Professor Ncube on Friday afternoon that a decision had been taken the previous Tuesday to ban all public meetings that is a very serious development, it means that the Regime has now decided to clamp down on legitimate expressions of discontent and, as I said just now, that is just going to increase tensions. We’ve seen how the Police over the last few years have used force against organisations like the NCA, WOZA, my colleague Raymond Majongwe and many others have been subjected to this abuse. But, never before have we seen a blanket ban like this imposed. So this is a very serious development and I think it’s a sign of increasing paranoia by the regime.

Arnold Tsunga :
You see the history of defiance of court orders is a history that associates itself with the present government and there is nothing entirely new in terms of this government agreeing with Court Orders that favour the Ruling Party and being contemptuous and defying all those judgements that are seen as not in the interest of ZANU PF or maybe propping up the Oppositional Forces. So there’s a litany of cases that Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights has been tracking where there’s been defiance of Court orders

It started in the 80’s but I think the most notable one which led to the situation in which we find ourselves now, you know, it started with the Mark Chavanduka and Ray Choto cases where they got orders against the Minister of Defence when they had been arrested by the Military Intelligence who have no policing responsibilities in the country, and then from there you saw Andrew Meldrum, he was kicked out of the country like a dog, you know sent out of the country in violation of a Court order. Then you had the Daily News case where there were various orders that had been given to restore property back to the Daily News owners and there was a Chief Superintendent Madzingo and the Commissioner of Police who defied Court Orders. The list is completely endless, you know the Roy Bennett, Chimanimani; there were numerous Court Orders in respect of the expropriation of his property, the killing, extrajudicial execution of his workers etc.

Violet:
And the lawyers for Human Rights actually took some of these cases to the African Commission. What was the outcome?

Arnold Tsunga: You see what the African Commission has done is to safely frown at the flagrant defiance and disregard of Court orders by the Zimbabwean Government. But, they have also come up with recommendations generally around the issues of creating an environment that is conducive to democracy and human rights where they have made a specific recommendation that the Government should abide by the judgements of the Supreme Court and other Courts before they can begin to expect citizens to want to comply with the Court Orders and the Rule of Law. They’ve also made very specific recommendations about the independence of the judiciary; that it needs to be guaranteed in terms of legislative processes and administrative practices. But, I think one of the most telling recommendations that they made is that you need a professional Police force that is not politicised. They made a very specific observation that the current law and order Unit is operating under political instructions and without accountability and that they needed to remove the Youth Militia from policing responsibilities.

Violet: But t hese are just recommendations that are never enforced; that can never be enforced in Zimbabwe, isn’t it?

Arnold Tsunga: Ya, the issue of enforcement is one thing, I think in terms of the political acceptance, you know, the findings by an organ that has been set up by the African Heads that Zimbabwe as a State is in violation of the African Charter which is the instrument that the African leaders have said they want to bind themselves in terms of how they practice democracy in their countries, I think it’s a very telling finding that the African Union has made. And then, the defiance of the Government of Zimbabwe on that recommendation is consistent with the defiance of decisions in local Courts. And, it’s now up to the African Heads of State to show political muscle.

Violet: OK but the State continues to defy court orders and get away with it. Now, Mr Majongwe, is this why there are civil wars because people are then forced to take matters into their own hands, to defend themselves?

Raymond Majongwe: Let me start by commenting and looking back at what Coltart was saying, I think I agree with him when he says the issue of the boiling pot and I think I would present it poetically and say ‘no Regime will put and keep its hand on a boiling pot forever’. But, the weakness and the tragedy in Zimbabwe is that we don’t have one pot, we have five hundred pots, some that are simmering, some that are boiling, some that don’t even have firewood or anything beneath them. Because the tragedy here is we have so many organisations doing so many things at the same time and thereby confusing everybody. Because, if we don’t explore this particular fundamental then we would be lying and fooling ourselves. Look at it, when you speak you say NCA, PTUZ, WOZA, The Lawyers for Human Rights, the MDC, that small group there – Why are we making reference to a plethora of all these organisations and not talk of one single powerful movement? Because, people, many of the comrades who are talking and speaking are doing it for commercial purposes, and, if we ignore that particular fundamental then we might not be looking at this particular thing and seeing it’s results. There are so many people who are engaging in this thing for material benefit, and there are people who are praying that the crisis in Zimbabwe goes to eternity.

Violet: Mr Coltart, what are your thoughts on this and also some critics say the objectives are generally too broad. They say for example the ZCTU has in the past planned to march in protest against high levels of taxation and inadequate ARV’s for HIV/AIDS. Now these are all crucial issues but in Zimbabwe today are these objectives achievable and are they not too broad?

David Coltart: Well I think that there’s a general consensus about what solution should be offered to Zimbabwe. I think that there’s a broad consensus in Zimbabwe now that the way out of this crisis is through a new constitution which enjoys support from all parties and that elections must then be held in terms of that new constitution which is supervised by the International Community and endorsed by the International Community and especially SADC. So, I think that, as I say, there’s a broad consensus regarding the goal and a broad consensus regarding ideas on the way out of this mess that we’re in. However, where Raymond Majongwe is correct is that there are so many different groups pursuing their own different means of achieving that end. But I’m not sure that you can ever contain that or change that because ultimately human beings have their own personalities and you get selfish people and ambitious people and I think that in one sense the wide spectrum of organisations that we have constitute quite a headache for the regime.

For example, take the MDC split, many people look at it very negatively and in many ways it has been a negative phenomenon in our recent history, but if you look at this last weekend, had the MDC been united, you would have had the entire leadership up in Harare for example focused on that meeting and the Regime would have been able to focus all it’s resources on that single meeting in Harare. Ironically, because of the split, there was a meeting in Bulawayo on the Saturday and a completely different caste of actors protesting down in Bulawayo on the Saturday and then of course on the Sunday and that must have created a headache for the Regime and the same thing with the different Unions, you’ve got different Teacher’s Unions.

WOZA is a completely separate organisation with a separate leadership, a separate agenda and I think that an absolute headache has been created for the CIO and the Regime as a result of this plethora of different organisations, all single minded in terms of the ultimate goal but pursuing different agendas and different avenues to get to that goal. So I don’t fully agree with Ray Majongwe where he says that you know diversity is a problem. Diversity is a problem if we are pulling against each other but I think that there are increasing signs that people are starting to pull together even in their diversity, like for example the Save Zimbabwe Campaign.

Violet: But do you agree Mr Coltart that workers have been left with no choice because there’s growing frustration with the slow pace that the Opposition is engaging in resolving the crisis?

David Coltart : I can see that, of course, and I certainly agree with Ray when he says that there are people ostensibly who are civil society activists who actually are doing very well out of this crisis. There are people in NGO’s who are paid in salaries that are denominated in hard currency. But not everyone’s in that position, in fact I think that there’s a small clique of people, but your point is absolutely correct that it is the workers who are suffering more than anyone else and the unemployed as well and they have been left out on a limb, but I think that the economic collapse is becoming so intense now that the middle class and even people that considered themselves fairly wealthy are now facing economic destruction and are as a result, being pulled into these campaigns in which the Unions have been the vanguard up until now.

Violet:
Let me go back to Raymond Majongwe. Others have said that the other problem is that it’s not just the country’s workforce that is suffering and that there are all these other people like housewives, farm workers, other people that are self-employed. How do you get all these groups involved?

Raymond Majongwe: Ya, apparently the most important thing that really needs to be understood, if you really go back to history; a lot of people dismiss history as nothing; but history should be able to teach us that where people are going to be united, where people are going to rally behind the necessary few things, where people are going to be led by a single leadership in terms of directing operations, you are likely to find out that results come easier and quicker. You look at the South African process, you look at Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, you look at many other African countries. You are really not going to succeed if you’re going to have splinter-ism and so many of these small groups doing a lot of things here and there. Whilst it is correct that people might see the CIO being stretched, but I honestly don’t want to believe that the CIO will not be stretched because there are a group of seven people gathering under a tree singing a song or wanting to do that thing there. Ultimately, the whole thing is that if people want to see real political change, the housewives, the workers in the farms, the people who are suffering with HIV and AIDS, those people who are failing to get transport, the people who are failing to send their children to school, we need to correctly agenda-set.

And, agenda-setting will be correctly done by a group of people who will sit down, come up with the correct credentials in terms of how they are going to build the momentum within the country, because, it’s not going to be good and nice because the ultimate beneficiary of what is happening in the country is ZANU PF and Robert Mugabe. We are going to have a lot of this confusion and the people will continue suffering! I’ll just maybe end this particular submission by saying the more people have these splinter organisations that are going to be fighting and most of all, if you really trace them back, many of the people who are in all these NGO’s were at one point in one organisation in the past.

In 1986, ’87, ’88 many were at one institution, then you come to 1995, ’96, ’97 there is one organisation then the organisation split and these same people still belong to the same organisation because they are still members in the other organisation. So much so that I honestly want to believe that the split between the MDC is not a solution to the crisis. The split in many of these small organisations worsens the situation in the country and ZANU PF becomes the biggest beneficiary. Only until and unless all these organisations come back, discuss, have at least a correct shared vision under a correct leadership. Because, democracy doesn’t mean that everybody must be doing their own thing separately and independently, because if democracy means that then Zimbabwe will be far away from what we are seeking to achieve.

Violet:
What about Mr Tsunga can you give us your thoughts on this, some have said that strategies and tactics are not clear because there is no core issue in which people can base the struggle on. Do you agree with this?

Arnold Tsunga: You know, I think generally Zimbabweans have an idea about what they want. They obviously want a democratic society. They believe that a constitution that is arrived at after involvement, you know, genuine involvement of people in terms of process is desired, and that you hold elections that are going to be supervised by the International Community around giving life to a constitution that will have been established with popular people participation. I think, in terms of that being the end-game, there’s absolutely no doubt that there is clarity. But then, the how to get there; which is basically the methodologies and the processes; that’s where, unfortunately, there seems to be disagreement or lack of clarity as to what route we are going to take. And, the issue of diversity, in terms of having many organisations that are involved in the pro-democracy movement, in the human rights movement as well as in the political processes; in the absence of a clear, coherent strategy, yes, there is going to be confusion.

So, on the strategy side, what you need is a method of cohering these organisations if they cannot come under one umbrella organisation. The ideal thing would be for all of them to be participating in one organisation under one umbrella and agitating for change as one. But if, for some reason, the diversity or the disagreements are such that it’s not going to be possible to do that, then you need to be moving towards a strategy of coherence where the different groups are interdependently working but in a coherent manner, which then emphasises what David Coltart was talking about, that you have a number of spontaneous activities in many parts of the country. It stretches the Police, it stretches the CIO, it stretches the justice delivery system, it’s becomes very expensive for the dictatorship and that’s one way in which you can actually continue knocking on the pillars that support dictatorship.

Violet :
And Majongwe, would you agree that as Arnold Tsunga has just said and David Coltart, that strikes and CBD protests could be just merely tactics and if so, how do all these things connect and feed into a broader strategy that encompasses the concerns of the general population

Raymond Majongwe: Ya, I think it is there that I differ with a lot of people. If you are going to have the Teachers going on strike in one week, then the doctors and the nurses in the other week then the farm workers in the other week, then so and so in the other week, I honestly want to believe that it is there that we will fail because I am convinced that a wholesale approach when all of us come together will really be the best in terms of having people to say – now we are going to be doing this. But nonetheless I honestly am convinced that maybe the people in this country haven’t come to a point where they necessarily agree because ultimately you are going to find out that so many small things happening in different places will obviously stretch the people who are then following these things up. But, in terms of the strategy, in terms of the ultimate political goal and vision, nothing changes, because I go to prison today, so and so goes to prison the next day. Because ultimately if you really look at it this country does not have political prisoners anyway. People still are talking about POSA and AIPPA, laws that we have all seen that they are discredited. If we really say we want to liberate this country, POSA and AIPPA are nothing but just laws, and people must ignore them. People must be prepared to challenge the system and say this is what we believe in even if it means death, even if it means going to prison. But then the people that are here are not ready to do that!

Violet Gonda: Mr Coltart?

David Coltart: Violet Ya I did want to chip in there. I think that what Ray is saying is the ideal. Look, obviously the ideal is that you get a co-ordinated strategy, you get all these different groups working together with agreements and strategy and tactics. But I think that in very few struggles throughout the world has that happened. I think that our best and perhaps closest example is what happened in South Africa in the struggle against apartheid, there were many different political organisations. There was the ANC, the PAC, the IFP; there were civic organisations, the Legal Resources Centre, Black Sash and the Churches, a wide variety of organisations with different agendas. But, ultimately, what changed things was when they agreed to work under the UDF and you had an inspirational figure who had no political ambitions in the form of Desmond Tutu who provided leadership along with other people – brought all these disparate organisations together. But, even then, they didn’t manage to co-ordinate things perfectly but there was a broad mass of organisations with a single goal in mind, the removal of apartheid.

And, ultimately, it worked and I think that we are getting to a similar stage in Zimbabwe and whilst I understand Ray’s ideal, I just want to encourage him and other Zimbabweans. I think that what we’re seeing in Zimbabwe, certainly in the last few weeks, is resistance and defiance taking on a life of its own. And I’m no longer worried because I see so many different organisations now realising that unless there is fundamental change in this country which is only going to come through a new constitution, through a new order, life will just get tougher and tougher. And, what we desperately need now is an organisation like the UDF in South Africa which we may find in the Save Zimbabwe organisation; we may find in the Christian Alliance a neutral body, a body of men and women who have no political ambition themselves, who act to coalesce all these different organisations, to give it some structure, to give it coherence and then I think you will see this process of defiance and resistance gather momentum.

Violet Gonda: Be sure not to miss this crucial and frank debate next week


Part Two: Broadcast on 27 February 2007

On the programme ‘Hot Seat’ Journalist Violet Gonda concludes her two part tele-conference with human rights campaigner Raymond Majongwe and Lawyers Arnold Tsunga and David Coltart.

Violet Gonda: Welcome to the final segment of the tele-conference with Arnold Tsunga, Director of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Raymond Majongwe, Secretary General of the radical Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe and David Coltart, a legal expert and Member of Parliament for the Mutambara MDC. We continue to discuss the growing discontent in Zimbabwe that has seen students, university lecturers, teachers, nurses and doctors go on strike. The situation on the ground is still very tense because of the hyper-inflationary environment and the ban on political meetings by the regime. In this segment I started by asking Arnold Tsunga how the striking groups can keep the momentum.

Arnold Tsunga:
I think there are a number of factors that have resulted in Zimbabweans behaving in the way they are now and it goes back to what David Coltart said earlier on that the current state of collective expression is merely a manifestation of what has been brewing over the years. If you look at the intersection between the socio economic conditions and the political processes that are taking place right now, you are actually beginning to see that we have reached a stage, I think, where the economic and social conditions are going to drive and determine the political processes. Before, maybe last year or the year before you had a situation where because the economy seemed to have been performing, you know, when the rule of law situation was thrown out of the window – you had a situation where politicians were driving the economic processes, the social processes. But, now there has been a reversal where now that the work force has been largely liquidated and people thrust into chronic poverty and you now have the middle class virtually extinguished and reduced into an environment also of chronic poverty; the highest inflation. You are beginning to see a situation where it’s now a question of survival. It’s no longer a question, people are not exactly conscious that they are involved in a political process; some of them are simply striking or getting engaged because they don’t have food at home. And, I think, that’s a very good intersection you know, between civil and political rights as well as economic – social rights in our country.

Violet: And Mr Majongwe, still on the same issue. You know teachers are demanding wages in line with the Poverty Datum Line and generally most sectors are asking for salary increments, but my question to you is would it be enough for the government to give you more money considering the inflationary environment?

Raymond Majongwe: Ya, I think the most important thing here is, are we, as citizens, supposed to have a decent life? If we agree and say ‘yes’, then we shouldn’t question whether it’s going to be inflationary, whether it’s going to exacerbate the situation, because the question that many of the teachers then ask me and ask those in leadership is ‘are we responsible for what is happening now.’ Can we therefore forgo a better living because we want to fight an army that we didn’t create? I think the short answer that I would give you is that we cannot be subjected to poverty in a country that we know has milk and honey as we have obviously had and we have seen. We cannot allow just a selected number of people to enjoy on our behalf. We are simply making a very clear statement that if the government is going to make a position that say the Poverty Datum Line stands at Z$566 000 then why should somebody who went to Teachers College and spent three years there, has been teaching for 17 years, be paid a salary that will allow that person fail to sustain and make sure that their families live normally. How can somebody really go to work and earn a salary that will enable them to buy four bananas a day? That’s unacceptable. So we are basically asking for the bare minimum, the PDL of $566 000 and in consulting the University of Zimbabwe Lecturers we were told that it has even left Z$566 000, it’s now around Z$642 000 which means we are even going to be changing the figures very soon.

Violet:
But, do you agree that unless you know the concerned groups realise the need for a new constitution and fundamental reforms there won’t be any long lasting change because Mugabe can just print more money?

Raymond Majongwe :
Ya, ultimately nobody doubts that. We are one of the few organisations in the country that even went to the MDC and said you cannot go into an election as long as the constitution still stands. I personally went into a public meeting with Morgan Tsvangirai and said in very clear and certain terms that you cannot engage ZANU PF in an election which you are going to lose anyway. I’m really surprised that the MDC; both MDCs; went and participated in the Chiredzi South by-election. And you then say to yourself ‘do these people really know what they are trying to fight, what were they going to benefit from this particular by-election when all these people are suffering? What exactly is going to be happening if people are going to be engaging in the Senate elections when the people are suffering because ultimately as far as the constitution remains the one that was smuggled into this country then the poverty and its perpetuation will remain the stark reality; people will continue suffering.

Violet:
Mr Coltart, you have argued in the past that the Opposition must continue to participate in elections and Parliament also, but we have seen how ZANU PF took the Chiredzi South by-election because it controls the electoral process and how it controls Parliament. Do you ever sit down as the Opposition to analyse, to see if you have made any meaningful contribution to your overall goal?

David Coltart:
Well, I still believe, surprisingly enough, that we have to participate in elections. I agree with Ray completely that there’s absolutely no prospect of the Opposition ever winning power through the electoral process because ZANU, as demonstrated this past weekend, are simply not going to allow that to happen. But, it comes back to the point of using every possible means to challenge and expose the regime. Had we not participated in the election in 2000 and exposed the violent side of ZANU PF, the pressure that has been brought to bear on ZANU PF by the international community would never have happened. The same applies even to this recent by-election in Chiredzi. Had we not participated ZANU would have just won that by-election, we would never have been able to show how food has been used as a political weapon down in Chiredzi South as it was. And, all of these things are building blocks, and it’s taken a long, long time, far too long for us to expose the real ZANU PF. But bear in mind that ZANU PF was viewed primarily by African states primarily as a liberating Party, as a democratic Party, as a Party that offered hope not just for the people of Zimbabwe, but for the whole of Africa. Now those of us down in Matabeleland who saw the real nature of ZANU PF between 1982 and 1987 knew that this was a Party that offered no hope for Zimbabwe but it’s taken a long, long time, through elections, through civic actions, through strikes, to expose the true nature of this Regime. And, that battle isn’t over, but, I still believe that we’ve got to use every single means at our disposal that includes participating in Parliament, it includes challenging the Courts.

Violet: But Mr Coltart, you know you have been challenging the elections for the past seven years and its there on the record that the electoral process is flawed in Zimbabwe . What else can you gain from participating in elections or Parliament right now when Mugabe will never allow free and fair elections?

David Coltart:
Well, let me stress one thing at the outset in answer to this. I have not argued, and none of my colleagues have argued that the electoral process is the only way or even the main way to challenge this Regime. All that we’ve said is that it’s one of several means and that we’ve got to use every single means. We’ve got to use civic action, we’ve got to use strikes, we’ve got to use international pressure, we’ve got to challenge through the courts, we’ve got to be in Parliament, we’ve got to participate in elections. So, it’s wrong to say that any of us have said this is the be all and end all of the struggle, it certainly isn’t, it is one small part. But, let me answer your question. We have to continue to challenge ZANU PF because ZANU PF puts out that it is the Ruling Party; that it is the Party that continues to enjoy the majority support from the people. And we also need to bear in mind that we are dealing with a very jaded International Community. An International Community that’s been sucked into Iraq and Afghanistan and a whole range of other international crisis and it’s losing patience and many countries, we’ve seen with France and Portugal and other countries, are looking for any excuse to reintegrate ZANU PF into the International Community. And one of the ways of making sure that ZANU PF remains a pariah is by showing that it lacks legitimacy, that it does not enjoy the support of the majority of people, and we do that through the electoral process

Violet: And Mr Tsunga, your thoughts on this? Should the MDC continue to participate in a flawed electoral process and also participate in Parliament?

Arnold Tsunga :
Ya, I think participating in Parliament, there shouldn’t be a big problem because, at the time of participating in elections, there was absolutely no questioning about the correctness of the MDC participating in elections. But I think post those elections there has been a credible concern on the part of a significant number of Zimbabweans whether continued participation is a correct thing to do or not on the part of the MDC in the absence of the opening up of the democratic space that is necessary for effective civic participation in the affairs of the nation. So, I think the concerns on whether continued participation in fact does not give greater legitimacy to processes that we view as fatally flawed. I think it’s a genuine concern and any action on the part of the political players to continue giving an impression that they are giving Zimbabweans an opportunity to choose when quite clearly the playing field is such that the Zimbabwean’s right to effective civic participation in the national affairs is a mirage in the present circumstances. I think it introduces a little bit of scrutiny on the political players in terms of their genuineness to continue participating. So, speaking as a citizen, I really think there is a need to really explore whether we are increasing the course of oppression this way or we are actually giving ZANU PF the moral high ground to say the Opposition have got sour grapes because they have lost elections and therefore they now want to go on to the streets because simply because they cannot get into power through legitimate means. So I really think it’s an area that the Political Parties need to look at again.

Raymond Majongwe :
I just wanted to say that many Zimbabweans, and I’m talking of the people who are on the street, they now don’t understand why the MDC has been going to Parliament. For instance, all these other laws were passed when the MDC was there. And, the question that they now ask is ‘would it have made any difference, wouldn’t we have made more gains if ZANU PF was alone in Parliament and the momentum would have increased on the streets and the people outside Parliament’. Because, now many people see the Parliamentarians on television, because I’m taking about the layman. The person who sees MDC Parliamentarians participating in flawed processes, also going out of the country on state sanctioned visits, visiting the ZBC, we see them on television, visiting the GMB, we see them on television. Now it appears as if the MDC is now part of the gravy train and these are the people who matter; these are the people who vote. Hence the apathy that you are going to find, the people are going to say ‘after all the MDC and ZANU PF are enjoying there in Parliament’. So, ultimately, I am convinced if the MDC really wants to salvage anything then they must pack their bags out of that Parliament, go back to the people and say ‘the mandate that you gave us, we have benefited nothing from it’. Then obviously people are going to say ‘yes, let’s do this together’.

Plus the other thing that I would obviously have wanted maybe Mr Coltart to respond to is the people are saying ‘is it true that the split that exists now within the two MDCs is a ZANU PF sponsored project?’ Because, how obviously are you going to have the MDC fielding the candidates where the other MDC has also fielded the other? And then they continue using the name of the MDC; what is the ultimate agenda and attention of having two MDCs? And many of the people ask ‘do you really think ZANU PF under Robert Mugabe will allow another ZANU PF to be formed under any other leader?’

Violet:
Mr Coltart are you able to respond to that, the issue of splitting the vote and the ZANU PF connection?

David Coltart : Oh absolutely Violet, let me respond to the splitting of the vote. I think everyone in their right mind would acknowledge that the current situation prevailing in Zimbabwe where you have all this confusion created by two MDCs is to put it mildly, unsatisfactory, and, the sooner both factions agree on either re-unification or some form of alliance or to agree to disagree and have different names, the sooner that happens the better. Because, there’s no doubt the split plays into the hands of ZANU PF and I don’t think that the rationally minded people in either side of this divide; in either faction; are happy about the situation. The sooner that we can resolve that the better and, as you know, there are talks taking place, there’ve been very positive talks taking place in the course of the last few months and I hope that shortly with goodwill shown by both sides we can resolve this and as I say, either re-unite these two factions or agree to a functional coalition so that we remove that confusion. Let me also say, in response to Ray, I have no doubt that ZANU PF and the CIO have been involved in this division and that they have fuelled it, that they have infiltrated both factions and that there are people in both factions who are working as hard as they can against any form of re-unification or coalition. That would be a natural thing for a fascist organisation like ZANU PF to do and we need to be vigilant and constantly identify those people who are working against this common goal and working to divide.

But let me conclude briefly by coming back to his first point; that is Ray’s first point; about participation in Parliament. I agree with him that Parliament has not achieved what we hoped it would achieve in 2000, that a range of oppressive legislation has been passed despite the fact that many of us have argued valiantly in Parliament until 4.00am in the morning to oppose it. But, I still believe, and I come back to the point I made just now, that if you don’t use every means; that is every peaceful non-violent means at your disposal, you create a much greater possibility of this country degenerating into violence, degenerating into a coup or something like that. And, that cannot be in this country’s best interest. And so, whilst yes, I agree with Ray when he questions the effectiveness of being in Parliament, I think one has to say that our presence in Parliament has in many respects furthered the struggle, has exposed the true nature of this regime. If you just look, for example, at what is happening with the Parliamentary Committees in Parliament at present with the revelations coming out about ZISCO and ZUPCO and other things; this Contempt Committee which has now been set up regarding Obert Mpofu. They don’t change things overnight but they undermine the Regime and our participation in there assists in that undermining.

Violet : But, let me just go back to the issue of the talks, how long will these talks last or take because doesn’t the MDC risk being overtaken by events? We’ve seen how the workers have been on strike for the last few weeks, Doctors have been on strike since December, the Teachers for the last three weeks and the MDC are still debating about talking. How long will this take?

David Coltart:
Violet I think that your criticism is entirely valid, these talks have been going on for far too long. They’ve gone on in fits and starts and quite frankly we need to progress them. I don’t personally understand, at this juncture, why there has been a delay, the last talks took place in late November and there’s now been a delay of some two months and it’s up to the leadership in both factions to move these talks along. But, just to come to your other point, of course there is a danger that the politicians are going to be overtaken by events but as a patriot, rather than a politician, I say ‘so be it’. If there are other groups that are more active such as WOZA or the NCA or the Trade Union Movement, who get the job done, well good luck to them. Because ultimately, if we are patriots; if we are interested in the future of Zimbabwe and a democratic Zimbabwe then our future doesn’t necessarily reside in the MDC, either faction of it, coming to power. Our future resides in us pressurising this Regime into agreeing to a new constitution, a new democratic constitution, democratic institutions, fresh elections that are genuinely free and fair, and ultimately that will usher in a new democratic era. And, that democratic era may see a country ruled by one faction of the MDC or a united MDC or a coalition of the MDC or perhaps new Political Parties. But, that isn’t what should concern us. What should concern us is the ultimate goal of bringing democracy to Zimbabwe

Violet:
And before we go and before I get your final thoughts, I just wanted to go back to the issue of the Rule of Law, and this is a question for Arnold Tsunga. We talked about how the Police continue to defy Court Orders. What recourse to assistance can victims get if they can’t get it from the Courts and also if they can’t get protection from the Police who have become their tormentors?

Arnold Tsunga:
Ya, you see, it comes back to the issue that the Rule of Law, the justice delivery process takes place within a system of governance, and that’s where there’s been a problem. We’ve had a systemic collapse in this system of government that we are running as a country and you would not expect the justice delivery system, as a sub-system within this main system, to function properly in the absence of political will, in the absence of separation of powers. And, once you talk about separation of powers you are going back to democracy. So, there’s a direct link between absence of democracy and this flagrant disregard of Court Orders by the police. And, in fact, not just disregard of Court Orders, but a situation where the Police force has now been viewed by an African Union organ as an extension of a Political Party, which means they are not carrying out their policing duties, they are merely exercising a political function to prop up ZANU PF at the expense of other parties. So this goes to democracy; this goes to a situation where you cannot dissociate or extricate the Rule of Law situation from the greater democratisation project.

Violet:
So what can people do? This is a question I had asked Raymond Majongwe at the beginning of this teleconference that is this why there are civil wars because people are then forced to take matters into their own hands.

Arnold Tsunga :
Ya, when I say that you cannot distinguish the Rule of Law from the greater democratisation process, what I’m simply saying is that which means the only way in which Zimbabweans will be able to get a return to the Rule of Law, in the absence of political will on the part of ZANU PF, is to then go through processes where they begin to demand their democratic space back. And, this is what has been manifesting itself in terms of the strikes that have been taking place from the beginning of the year up to now where you are beginning to see people engaging collectively in processes where they are claiming back their democracy, claiming back their rights from what they perceive to be a dictatorship environment.

Violet:
And Raymond Majongwe, a final word before we go?

Raymond Majongwe : Ya, I think ultimately whether people are going to have Court Orders in their favour, people are going to have a lot of these High Court positions which say ‘proceed and do that’ and there’s no will to walk the talk, there’s no will to stand and face the violence and brutality. Because, this is Africa . I think this is the lesson that many of our comrades need to understand. This is Africa , and democracy comes to Africans in a very hard way! It’s unfortunate, that’s not what I wish to achieve or wish to experience, but, if people are going to say ‘ya, we have now achieved our goals’; people have to be prepared to have both the blood and the iron concept into play. I am convinced that while we are going to stand up and say ‘we had an Order that allowed people to proceed with this particular meeting, there is this Order to proceed with this particular process’, and the Police are the going to be given the political force to say ‘make sure this doesn’t happen’, and they proceed to do it and the people say ‘ah, what else can we do’, then I think we are obviously going to be losing. We need a process, a group of people in institutions that will stand and say ‘if it means that we are really not going to be listened to, then we are going to take this other defiance route’. And, I will tell you, no other means will bring results besides confronting processes and institutions of injustice.

Violet:
Mr Coltart?

David Coltart: Well I beg to differ in a certain respect with Ray and let me stress that I respect you Ray as a great human rights campaigner, but I think the trouble about using the language of confrontation unqualified is dangerous. I differ when you say that ‘this is Africa’, that somehow Africans are different and that one can achieve a Velvet Revolution in Ukraine but that’s impossible in Africa . I don’t think that even our recent history bears that out. I think that in the late 1980’s in South Africa people thought that bloodshed would be the only way of bringing an end to Apartheid. But, that’s not what happened. As we know, there was a miraculous transfer, transition to democracy and the same happened in Ghana under Jerry Rawlings, there was a relatively peaceful transition. And I believe that’s what we still have to strive for. I agree that there needs to be confrontation but I believe very strongly that it needs to be non-violent confrontation and that even if the Police are going to defy Court Orders, we must still go to the Courts and that we must still use every single non-violent means at our disposable. But, we’ve got to be brave. Ray spoke earlier about unjust laws, well, I believe that unjust laws are there to be defied. That was the principle enunciated by Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi and I don’t think we should be any different. But that takes leadership, it takes bold courageous leadership and we now need people like Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara, Ray Majongwe, Pius Ncube, Ray Motsi – the Christian Alliance leaders; all of our leaders throughout the country, Jenni Williams and her brave women, to lead us but to be committed to using non-violent means of confrontation. Only that way will we guarantee a reasonable transition and a secure future for our children and our grandchildren.

Violet: And Arnold Tsunga?

Arnold Tsunga:
Ya, you know what I was thinking as a way of ending is that it might be an idea to quote what the President (Mugabe) said when the was confronted with the situation where he had to either comply or defy in terms of the State complying or defying with a Court Order.

Violet :
Where was he saying this? Just a reminder?

Arnold Tsunga : It’s cited if you look at some of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum reports, I think when we were looking at the Abuja agreement and the Commonwealth Principles, whether Zimbabwe had complied or disregarded the Abuja agreement, there is an analysis which was done by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, and they cited the President in that document.

He said: “the Government will respect judgements where the judgements are true judgements, and, we do not expect Judges will use subjectivity in interpreting the Law. We expect Judges to be objective, we may not understand them in some cases, but when a Judge sits alone in his house or with his wife and says this one is guilty of contempt, that judgement should never be obeyed. I’m not saying this because we would want to defy Judges, in fact, we have increased their salaries recently. We want them to be happy, but, if they are not objective don’t blame us when we defy them”.

So, you can see the direction where the Police get their attitude to Court Orders is coming from. It’s coming from the Chief Executive Officer of this country. And, I think this type of culture is not a culture that supports democracy, that supports the Rule of Law, and, we need to deal with it very decisively. And, maybe just to end, you know the Judge President, when she was opening the High Court this year – Justice Makarau – she said that the Judiciary is under appreciated in our country and she was referring to things like this.

Violet:
Thank you very much Arnold Tsunga, Raymond Majongwe and David Coltart.

All: Goodnight.

Audio interview can be heard on SW Radio Africa’s Hot Seat programme (Tues 27 February 2007). Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Mugabe bans rallies as unrest spirals

The Daily Telegraph
19th February 2007
By Peta Thornycroft, Zimbabwe Correspondent

Police stop opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai from rallying

President Robert Mugabe’s regime tried to suppress rising discontent across Zimbabwe yesterday by banning all opposition political gatherings.

Heavily armed riot police enforced this edict by preventing one rally from taking place in the capital, Harare, and breaking up another in Bulawayo on Saturday.

Although the law had previously forced the opposition to seek police permission for any gathering, an outright ban has never been imposed before.

Kembo Mohadi, the home affairs minister, verbally informed an opposition politician that the cabinet had decided to proscribe all rallies last week.

He was quoted in court documents as saying: “With political tensions rising, security ministers decided on Tuesday to ban all political meetings, except those associated with by-elections.”

However, no formal order has been issued. Riot police barricaded the venue for a rally in the Harare township of Highfield.
They prevented Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of one faction of the divided Movement for Democratic Change, from telling his supporters that he would contest the next presidential elections, supposedly due in March 2008 but likely to be postponed.
Riot police assaulted several people and arrested others when they tried to gather for the meeting.

Police set up roadblocks and fired Israeli-made water cannons at the crowd. In Bulawayo, another faction of the MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara defied a police ban and marched through the city. Scores of people were arrested and assaulted.

“We are instructing lawyers to try and get people released. Unfortunately one young man was seriously injured by police,” said David Coltart, legal secretary to Mr Mutambara’s faction of the MDC.

Economic collapse and an inflation rate of 1,594 per cent – the highest in the world – are fuelling the unrest.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Statement regarding breaches of the rule of law during the weekend 17/18 February 2007

During the past weekend the 17th and 18th February 2007 both factions of the MDC attempted to hold meetings, as is their right in terms of section 21 of the Zimbabwean Constitution, which were frustrated through the actions of the police, the courts and the Minister of Home Affairs.

In Bulawayo the MDC (Mutambara faction) intended to launch its defiance campaign at the Bulawayo City Hall on Saturday afternoon the 17th February 2007. Having initially received no objection from the police it was then subjected to a police raid on the 15th February 2007, the effective arrest of its administrator on the 16th February 2007, who was then advised that the meeting had been banned. When Secretary General Professor Welshman Ncube MP appealed to the Minister of Home Affairs in terms of section 25 (5) of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) he was told by the Minister that a decision had been taken to issue a blanket ban on all political meetings due to the “ volatile situation prevailing in the country”. Given the fact that the Minister has no right to issue blanket bans a decision was taken to defy the illegal banning of the meeting, whilst at the same time a challenge against the ban would be launched in the High Court.

An urgent court application was made seeking an interdict preventing the police from banning the meeting. One of the points raised was that section 25 (5) of POSA violates both sections 18 and 21 of the Zimbabwean Constitution. Section 25 (5) gives the Minister of Home Affairs the ultimate power to determine whether political meetings should be allowed to take place or not. It is common cause that the Minister of Home Affairs is also a politician (in the present case a politician who holds a very senior position in the ZANU PF party). To that extent the Minister of Home Affairs is not a neutral arbiter; indeed he is a person with an obvious bias.

Section 18 (9) of the Constitution of Zimbabwean states that “ every person is entitled to be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court or other adjudicating authority established by law in the determination of the existence or extent of his civil rights or obligations”. Section 25 (5) of POSA clearly violates this right as it gives a member of one political party the right to determine the affairs of another competing political party. This section also offends section 21 (1) of the Constitution which states that “no person shall be hindered in his freedom of assembly and association”. The power given to the Minister of Home Affairs in this regard is an unreasonable hindrance in the exercise of the right to freely assemble and associate.

Regrettably the situation was further compounded when the Registrar of the High Court in Bulawayo was unable to locate a single judge who could hear the urgent application. It is common cause that judges are expected to be available 24 hours a day and at the very least a duty judge should be readily available at all times. It should be stressed that this is a constitutional obligation. The same section 18 (9) in the Constitution states that everyone is entitled to “a fair hearing within a reasonable time”. It is a well established practice a duty judge should be in place at all times to hear urgent applications immediately. The absence of a duty judge in Bulawayo, either through dereliction of duty or through deliberate action, resulted in a serious breach of the MDC’s constitutional rights to seek an urgent interdict against the police and the Minister of Home Affairs. The Judge President is urged to investigate the matter and to discipline those responsible.

What happened in Harare over the weekend appears to confirm that the ZANU PF regime is determined to flout the rule of law. Unlike what happened in Bulawayo the MDC (Tsvangirai faction) was advised of the banning of its meeting scheduled for Sunday the 18th February 2007 early enough to lodge an application in the High Court during normal business hours. Commendably the High Court in Harare granted an application in favour of the MDC confirming that its meeting could go ahead. However in an apparent confirmation of the general directive advised to Secretary General Professor Welshman Ncube by the Minister of Home Affairs on Friday the 16th February 2007, that a general ban on political meetings had been imposed, it has now been reported that the police disregarded the High Court order and refused to allow the MDC to carry on with its meeting. Other news reports detail the deployment of hundreds of police officers in a determined effort to prevent the meeting from taking place.

If these news reports are correct, and we have no reason to doubt their veracity, the police must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for this flagrant disregard of an order granted by the High Court of Zimbabwe. In a statement I released last month I said “The truth is that the Judiciary will always be seen by Zanu PF as some cumbersome appendix which is necessary to maintain the façade of democracy and which on occasions can be useful in furthering a political goal. But the Judiciary will never be an institution which is revered by Zanu PF as an indispensable part of a Zimbabwean democracy”. Sadly the events of this past weekend provide further evidence that that statement is true.

The wanton violence used by the police against supporters of the opposition in both Bulawayo and Harare must also be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

In any normal functioning constitutional democracy the flagrant disregard of an order of court and its constitutional obligations by the police would result in the head of that police force being forced to resign. That of course will not happen in Zimbabwe because it is not a constitutional democracy. However we nevertheless call on both the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Home Affairs to resign in view of the disgraceful events which have occurred in Zimbabwe this past weekend.

The Hon David Coltart MP
Shadow Justice Minister

Bulawayo
19th February 2007

Posted in Statements | 3 Comments

Breaking the impasse in Zimbabwe

A plea for action on Zimbabwe by South Africa and Germany
by David Coltart

The current situation

In his book Development as Freedom, the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen stresses the causal connection between democracy and the absence of famine. He makes the point that there has never been a famine in the recorded history of any country which has a free press, to support the claim that a free press and an active opposition constitute the best early warning system a country threatened by famine can have. In other words, the failure or non-existence of democracy usually results in economic collapse, and that in turn invariably leads to such humanitarian catastrophes as famine.

The destruction of democracy, weak as it already was, in Zimbabwe since 2000 has been well documented. In 2000 Zimbabwe had a unique opportunity, which it squandered, to build a national consensus on a new constitution. Since then there has been a rapid decline into increasingly authoritarian rule. The implosion of the Zimbabwean economy has followed. The country now has hyperinflation and is rated the fastest-declining economy in the world. The death of democracy and economic collapse have together resulted in a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently reported that people living in Zimbabwe now have the lowest life expectancy in the world. Since 1994 the average life expectancy for women in Zimbabwe has fallen from 57 to 34, and for men from 54 to 37. The WHO believes that life expectancy rates will continue to fall. It is estimated that some 3 500 people die every week in Zimbabwe through the deadly combination of Aids, poverty and malnutrition. To put that in a global context, a recent report stated that some 700 people a week were dying in Iraq. Another publication said that some 400 000 people have died in Darfur since 2003: this can be compared with the estimate that about 600 000 Zimbabweans have died during the same period.

According to findings released in October 2006 by the Zimbabwe Demographic Health Survey (ZDHS), child mortality in the country has nearly doubled, rising from 59 per 1 000 live births in 1985 (five years after Zimbabwe gained independence) to 102 per 1 000 live births in 1999. The under-five mortality rate has continued to rise, with 129 per 1 000 in 2004, according to United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) figures. The situation has become more grave since 2004, when the economy plummeted further. An additional factor that might be expected to increase mortality rates is that in 2006 the Mugabe regime forcibly displaced 700 000 people. According to a UN report, a great number of these were children. Accordingly it is safe to assume that child mortality rates have risen sharply since 2004.

These shocking facts are the result of the unique convergence of three factors in Zimbabwe: the Aids pandemic and the government’s failure to address it; severe economic decline; and high levels of malnutrition, which the government refuses to acknowledge. These factors are dealt with separately in the sections that follow.

Aids and the Zimbabwean government’s failure to deal with the pandemic

In a report released in June 2006 by James Morris, the Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), the UN stated that Zimbabwe has one of the highest incidences of HIV/Aids in the world. Southern Africa is in fact the epicentre of the global pandemic. Nine of the 10 countries with the highest levels of infection in the world are to be found in Southern Africa. Zimbabwe is one of them.

What makes Aids particularly life-threatening in Zimbabwe is the fact that the government has dedicated the bulk of its dwindling resources to maintaining its hold on power, instead of providing the antiretroviral (ARV) drugs necessary to combat the disease. It is estimated that only a tiny fraction of those people suffering from HIV/Aids are on regular courses of medication. Mugabe’s regime prefers spending money on keeping its own people at bay to saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens. In the 2006 budget an amount equivalent to 12.5% of the total allocation for health was awarded to Zimbabwe’s equivalent of Stasi, the Central Intelligence Organisation. On top of this, the share allocated to the military was greater than that for health. This trend in the government’s thinking is underlined by its recent announcement that it is about to import new military aircraft from China. This is defence spending in a country which is not at war, and which is surrounded by friendly states.

The fastest-shrinking economy in the world

The results of the Zimbabwe government’s ruinous policies include destroying the agricultural sector (which prior to 2000 accounted for 40% of Zimbabwe’s foreign exchange earnings and now generates half of that); driving out the country’s best brains, regardless of race; and in the last year destroying the homes and livelihoods of some 700 000 Zimbabweans, The country’s economy is now in free fall. Inflation, according to official (and thus very conservative) government figures, now exceeds 1 200% per annum. Respected economists believe that inflation is more probably in excess of 2 000% per annum. To put this in perspective, the world’s next highest inflation rates are those of Myanmar (Burma) at 70% a year, and Iraq at 40%!

Zimbabwe has suffered five successive years of economic decline. During that period some 3 million Zimbabweans are estimated have gone into economic exile. A high proportion of these have been among the most economically active members of the population. The cream of Zimbabwe’s professional and technical sectors has left, and will not return until there is a political settlement and the reinstatement of the rule of law and democracy.

Over 80% of the Zimbabweans remaining in the country are now unemployed.
The net result for poor people, especially those suffering from HIV/Aids, has been a precipitous fall in their standard of living. They are now unable to afford even the most basic foodstuffs, toiletries and medication. The combination of Aids and poverty has been catastrophic for most of the population.

High levels of malnutrition, and a government which refuses to acknowledge the extent of the problem

In October 2006 the WFP reported that 1.4 million Zimbabweans would need food aid within the six months following, regardless of the crop output of the forthcoming agricultural season. Human rights organisations within Zimbabwe believe that the figure of 1.4 million is a huge underestimation because of the impact of poverty on so many Zimbabweans who are nominally employed. People who previously would have been able to buy food for themselves are no longer able to do so, and millions of urban poor are visibly losing weight. Yet these people are not included in WFP estimates because they are considered to be in employment.

The Zimbabwean government has deliberately downplayed the extent of the crisis over the last few years, for political and propaganda reasons. This compounds the problem. The administration has tried to control the supply of food because in doing so it is able to use food as a political weapon. In this way desperate people, especially in the rural areas, can be coerced into voting for the ruling Zanu-PF party.

Furthermore, if the government were to acknowledge the full extent of the problem, especially in a year (such as 2006) when there have been good rains, that would be tantamount to an admission that the food shortages are a direct result of its chaotic and corrupt land reform programme. This has resulted in highly productive farms being rendered derelict by the government ministers, party operatives, army commanders and judges who have taken them over. Therefore the government consistently refuses to admit the gravity of the problem, and on various occasions in the last few years has been deliberately obstructive towards the WFP and other humanitarian agencies, preventing them from operating freely in Zimbabwe.

In a television interview Mugabe gave in 2004, he said that Zimbabweans did not want to ‘choke’ on international food aid, which they did not need. At the same time NGOs were barred from distributing food, and the government insisted on controlling all food distribution. This policy continued until the March 2005 general elections had been held. The net result was that millions of Zimbabweans over the last few years have been deprived of access to the food supplied by international agencies.

The combination of all of the factors listed above is unique. It is not surprising that Zimbabweans now have the lowest life expectancy in the world. Yet it is
particularly shocking when one remembers that Zimbabwe is not a desert. In 1958 its economy was larger than Singapore’s. Until relatively recently it was the second-largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa. This is not a Liberia or a Somalia. In short this has been a preventable tragedy — and a worse disaster is still preventable. The situation can be turned around within months; hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved and an entire region stabilised.

The world is looking the other way

The Zimbabwean crisis is compounded by the fact that world is showing little interest in the country’s agony. This is attributable to a number of factors. First, although it is arguable that more people are dying in Zimbabwe through the unique combination of factors mentioned above than in Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur, Zimbabwe hardly rates a mention in the world’s media. Part of the reason is that this is a story that is difficult to film or to write. The country offers very few stark images liekly to capture the world’s attention. A casual visitor to Zimbabwe will not see blood flowing, or many children with kwashiorkor bellies. There are no car bombs. People who die through a combination of Aids, poverty and malnutrition die quietly; they literally fade away. The only means of getting any sense of the extent of the catastrophe is by visiting morgues and cemeteries. These are overflowing. The most poignant evidence of the calamity is to be found in the dates inscribed on headstones and plaques in the cemeteries — the vast majority of people being buried there are young people and children.

Secondly, although they are allowed in Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq, the foreign media are generally barred from operating in Zimbabwe by the government. There are draconian laws that forbid foreign journalists from working in Zimbabwe without permission, which is rarely given. Journalists are routinely detained in Zimbabwe, and the laws relating to the media prescribe prison terms for those who infringe their stipulations. Media organisations like the BBC and CNN are effectively banned from Zimbabwe. As a result the story of Zimbabwe’s human tragedy is simply not being told. But unless the world’s media put the catastrophe at the top of their agendas, there will be no public pressure on governments elsewhere to take up Zimbabwe as a political cause.

Thirdly, because Zimbabwe has no oil and very few strategic mineral resources, there is no obvious strategic reason why the world powers should want to focus their attention on its troubles. Whilst Zimbabwe does have large reserves of platinum, these are not in sufficiently short supply globally to warrant special attention from the international community. Tragically for Zimbabweans, the only interest that the country’s platinum has aroused internationally is that of the Chinese, who have been prepared to prop up Mugabe’s regime in order to secure privileged access to the mineral.

Fourthly, the response of Southern African governments to the catastrophe unfolding on their doorstep is best described as a state of denial or paralysis.

The net result is that whilst Zimbabwe is arguably the scene of the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis at present, and whilst crimes against humanity have been and are being committed by the government, the world is looking the other way. In doing so it is guaranteeing that the crisis will escalate at a horrifying rate.

Germany and South Africa: a possible solution?

This is not the first time that Zimbabwe has found itself in a critical situation. It faced similar problems in 1976. Then it took the active involvement of the USA and South Africa to break the impasse. Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy resulted in the Rhodesian Front’s finally conceding the principle of majority rule. While that did not yield an immediate settlement of the country’s political dilemma, it at least set in train a process that resulted in intense diplomatic activity and ultimately the Lancaster House agreement, arrived at three years later.

There are two important differences between the present situation and that prevailing in 1976. Firstly, in the mid-seventies South Africa was highly susceptible to Western pressure; and, secondly, the USA and Britain were not engaged in any other wars at the time, and so could focus on Zimbabwe’s affairs. Whilst in the current climate South Africa is under pressure to resolve the crisis (especially because it is starting to hurt its own economy), its leaders have to balance any action they take regarding Zimbabwe against the support the Zanu- PF regime still receives from the majority of Southern African Development Community (SADC) states. For this reason any settlement encouraged by South Africa must enjoy the backing of other major African states.

At present both the USA and Britain are so heavily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan that they simply do not have the capacity to play a meaningful role in the resolution of Zimbabwe’s problems. That position is compounded by the fact that the Zanu-PF regime has successfully persuaded many other African states of the merit of its propaganda line that the USA and Britain are interested only in ‘regime change’ (rather than a democratic process that will culminate in a new constitution and free and fair elections). Accordingly the USA and Britain are not well positioned to engage in regional shuttle diplomacy in Africa.

In the circumstances there are two countries that can make a difference, and should be actively engaged in resolving the crisis. These are South Africa and Germany. The need for South Africa’s involvement is obvious; Germany’s potential role is less so. The latter occupies a unique position in Southern Africa in that it adopted a very strong stance against apartheid, was not Zimbabwe’s colonial master, and has not been involved in the Iraq war. Because of the strong opposition to the Iraq war expressed by many African governments and because of the concerns already mentioned (that the USA or the UK may have a ‘regime change’ agenda for Zimbabwe), the latter can exert only a limited influence on Southern African states. They are therefore unable to encourage them to take a more proactive role in helping to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe.

Germany does not suffer from any such handicap. Furthermore, at present (2007) Germany holds two key international positions which will provide it with an opportunity to act on Zimbabwe. Germany’s presidency of the EU commenced in January 2007, and in July that country will play host to the next G8 summit. Both will provide Chancellor Angela Merkel with important windows of opportunity. A stable Southern Africa (which is now under threat because of the collapse of its second-largest economy) is in the strategic interest of both the EU and the G8. Chancellor Merkel could use her leading roles in both and work vigorously with partner governments in Southern Africa to end the Zimbabwean crisis. Another factor is that Germany has considerable investments in Southern Africa, and in South Africa in particular.

It is in Germany’s interest to do everything possible to secure its own investments in Southern Africa. If the Chancellor is able to play a positive role in resolving the Zimbabwean stalemate she will not only protect existing German investments but create a vast reservoir of goodwill in Southern Africa. This in turn will enhance Germany’s trade and investment prospects in the region in future.

The long-term stability of South Africa depends in large part on its being able to achieve its medium to long-term economic growth targets. These in turn can be met only if medium- to long-term foreign direct investment goals are achieved. If the latter are not met, then South Africa’s growth targets will be missed and the high expectations of black working-class South Africans will be frustrated. This could destabilise South Africa. Furthermore, if South Africa’s economy falters, the entire SADC area will be affected. If that happens, it is inevitable that a region that has taken significant strides towards democracy and economic opening will suffer a setback. This would harm the political and economic security of Southern Africa.

Regrettably, Zimbabwe’s troubles have already had a negative effect on the region. Firstly, because long-term investors fear that South Africa may go the same way as Zimbabwe and replicate its decline into lawlessness and economic collapse, much potential long-term investment in South Africa and adjacent countries has been diverted to other parts of the world. Secondly, as already noted, some 3 million Zimbabweans have gone into economic exile since 2000. The bulk of these people have found homes in South Africa and Botswana. This has not only put additional burdens on those economies, but has driven up the rates of national unemployment and crime in those countries. If Zimbabwe implodes or explodes, the flood of refugees will become a tidal wave. Thirdly, Southern Africa’s inability (or reluctance) to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis has created a negative impression of the entire region in the eyes of international investors, thus retarding even short-term economic growth.

What should South Africa and Germany do?

One of the reasons why relations between the EU and SADC are strained, apparently irreconcilably so, is that the interests of the members of both bodies are too diverse to make it possible to establish a consensus about what should be done, and what policy adopted, to settle the Zimbabwean crisis. Accordingly it is not surprising that the lack of agreement should extend to the bodies themselves.

South Africa and Germany should seek to break the impasse, take the initiative in devising a plan to rescue Zimbabwe, and seek to drive the process. The most propitious time for them to do so will be the first half of 2007. Because initiatives taken at the macro institutional level of the EU and SADC have failed owing to the diversity of members’ views, what is needed is to seek consensus between a few key countries in both the EU and SADC. The latter will be those that have the most to lose from the threatened implosion of Zimbabwe, namely South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana. As president of the EU, Chancellor Merkel should use her position to develop a common understanding with President Mbeki, based on the mutual concern of the two leaders for the long-term political and economic stability of Southern Africa.

If a common position is agreed between Chancellor Merkel and President Mbeki and a plan of action decided on, they will have commit themselves not only to a determined diplomatic initiative but a shared commitment to prioritise Zimbabwe’s affairs. One of the reasons why diplomatic efforts to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis have failed so far is that it has always featured as an addendum to, not the focus of, the diplomatic agenda that the EU and SADC share. In other words, it is going to take unwavering focus and political commitment on the part of both leaders to carry out the initiative. Their plan of action can then be used to build first a consensus between the EU and SADC, and then to gain the consent of the member states of both regional institutions.

The solution to both the humanitarian and economic crises in Zimbabwe is political

The impasse in Zimbabwe will not be broken if the root cause of the problem is not addressed. At its core is a crisis of governance. This in turn stems from the deeply flawed Lancaster House constitution, which was hurriedly agreed upon in the rush to bring an end to the country’s bloody war of liberation. It would be pointless to focus on the economic and humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe without addressing the fundamental need for a new democratic dispensation.

What Zimbabwe needs more than anything else now is a national consensus on how the country should be governed. That will happen only if Zimbabwe’s Southern African neighbours, backed by the international community, encourage all political players in Zimbabwe to embark on a constitutional reform process like that which ushered in a peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa. If the EU and SADC were to agree on such a course of action, and were prepared to exert strong pressure on all players within Zimbabwe to participate in such a process, many of the problems of Zimbabwe could be brought to a rapid end.

Whilst both ZANU-PF and the MDC are currently in disarray (the former has no succession plan and is seriously divided, while the latter has split), that situation should be viewed in a positive light. Despite the chaos, there are substantial majorities in both political formations that recognise the critical need for constitutional reform. Paradoxically the split in the opposition provides a unique opportunity, because it has lulled ZANU-PF into the belief that the opposition does not any longer pose a meaningful threat, and that therefore it can press ahead with its own version of constitutional reform. Even Mugabe’s expressed intention of extending his own term to 2010 can be exploited positively, because he can do this only by amending the constitution, which will entail reopening the constitutional reform debate. There are also serious reservations within ZANU-PF about whether Mugabe should be allowed to remain in office for so long. In short, the time is ripe for the international community to focus its attention on constitutional reform as the principal means of breaking the impasse in Zimbabwe.

However, given the urgency of the situation and Zanu-PF’s well-developed propensity for buying time, any attempt at bringing about real constitutional reform will work only if Southern African states bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwean government to participate wholeheartedly in the process. Already there is a remarkable degree of agreement on what constitutional reforms are needed, and much work has already been done. Accordingly if this process were supported by both SADC and the EU it is not over-optimistic to assume that agreement on a new democratic constitution could be reached within a few months.

Free and fair elections that are compliant with the new constitution and the SADC electoral standards, overseen by SADC and the UN, and financially supported by the EU should follow agreement on the terms of a new constitution. The results of that election should be accepted by all parties (and SADC and the EU). Then economic assistance to stabilise the country should start to flow from abroad.

Only a political settlement that is accepted by all will yield a solution to the economic and humanitarian crises besetting Zimbabwe today.

Conclusion

The situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated rapidly since 2000, causing tremendous loss of life. Conditions in the country now represent what is arguably the world’s greatest humanitarian challenge in 2007. The fact that Zimbabweans now have the lowest life expectancy in the world cannot be ignored any longer.

Vigorous action is required urgently. South Africa and Germany are probably the only countries in the world influential enough in both Europe and Africa to play this vital role. Sadly, though, the desperate needs of Zimbabwe do not occupy a prominent place on either country’s foreign policy agenda. It is high time that this is changed before the crisis reaches unmanageable proportions. Disaster in Zimbabwe will set back the entire Southern African region.

David Coltart
Bulawayo 30th January 2007

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Mugabe blamed for justice collapse

The Daily Telegraph
19th January 2007
By Peta Thornycroft in Harare

President Robert Mugabe: Increasingly repressive

Zimbabwe’s justice system, once considered a model for the rest of Africa, has collapsed after being starved of funds by President Robert Mugabe’s government, one of the country’s most senior judges has claimed.

In an unprecedented attack on the government by the judiciary, Judge Rita Makarau told an audience of officials of the ruling Zanu-PF and diplomats that the justice system was so corrupt it undermined the country’s democracy.

She alleged that senior staff at the justice ministry were assisting litigants “with long delayed judgments, for a fee”.

Judge Makarau, the second most prominent justice in Zimbabwe and the first woman to occupy the position, also attacked the “inhuman and degrading conditions” of holding cells at police stations, which are crammed with suspects awaiting trial.

She said that in one province more than 100 murder suspects had yet to be brought to trial because the High Court did not have the resources to fund proceedings.

“It is wrong to make the judiciary beg for its sustenance from central government,” she said.

Her outspoken comments were made at a function marking the start of the 2007 session of Harare’s High Court.

“We have managed to avoid… shortcomings in the local educational system by sending our children to schools and universities in South Africa, Australia, United States and United Kingdom.

“When we need complex medical procedures that local hospitals cannot now provide, we fly mainly to South Africa.
“Yet when we have to sue for wrongs done to us, we cannot do so in Australia or South Africa and have to contend with the inadequately funded justice system in this country.”

As Mr Mugabe’s regime has become increasingly repressive, most of the country’s experienced judges have quit or have gone into exile. He has subsequently filled the benches with inexperienced lawyers sympathetic to Zanu-PF.

In 2001 Zanu-PF activists raided the Supreme Court in Harare, danced on the bench and threatened the former chief justice, Anthony Gubbay. When he sought and failed to get protection from the government, he retired early.

The International Bar Association condemned the affair and other instances of intimidation of Zimbabwe’s judges as having “put the very fabric of democracy at risk”.

David Coltart, the opposition MP and founding member of the Movement of Democratic Change, said: “Since 2000, the law, and the justice system have been used as a weapon against legitimate democratic opposition and spurious charges have been brought against opposition leaders, activists and supporters.

“Judges delayed politically sensitive matters, such as electoral petitions, release of activists, including legislators, which caused serious miscarriages of justice.”

He said that some judges had betrayed their independence by backing the government’s appropriation of white-owned farms.
Patrick Chinamasa, the justice minister and author of most of Zimbabwe’s most repressive legislation, declined to comment yesterday, saying that he was “still on holiday”.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Statement regarding the Judge President’s remarks made at the opening of the High Court 15th January 2007

The Judge President, Justice Makarau, in her address to the opening of the High Court on the 15th January 2007, has correctly stated that normally Judges should not complain publicly regarding their conditions of service, but that she has to because their conditions, and the conditions of all those involved in the justice system, are now dire. The MDC is in principle sympathetic towards Judges and towards all those affected by the fact that the government has not allocated sufficient resources to the Ministry of Justice.

However the reason why this deleterious situation has been allowed to arise is because the Zanu PF regime does not care about justice and only tolerates the Judiciary in so far as it serves its purposes. Since 2000 law, and the justice system in general, has been used as a weapon against legitimate democratic opposition. Spurious charges have been brought against opposition leaders, activists and supporters; equally spurious trials have been held. Judges have delayed politically sensitive matters such as electoral petitions and applications for the release of activists, including MPs, causing serious miscarriages of justice. Many Judges have seriously compromised their independence by taking and occupying farms often unlawfully seized from commercial farmers. Many Judges since 2000 have severely retarded the positive strides made by the Judiciary since 1980 in expanding the rights of Zimbabweans through positive interpretations of Zimbabwe’s Declaration of Rights, by handing down a string of judgments inimical to universal human rights norms. Other Judges who have chosen to act professionally have been hounded out of office and some have gone into exile.

During the same period the Zanu PF regime have ensured that vast amounts of money are spent on the CIO. That shows exactly where its priorities lie. Accordingly it is clear that Judges have simply been used and exploited by the regime to further their political purposes. The truth is that the Judiciary will always be seen by Zanu PF as some cumbersome appendix which is necessary to maintain the façade of democracy and which on occasions can be useful in furthering a political goal. But the Judiciary will never be an institution which is revered by Zanu PF as an indispensable part of a Zimbabwean democracy. It is in light of this that we fear that the Judge President will not be listened to by this regime and to that extent her statement is futile. It may be that some individual Judges will have their conditions addressed but in the prevailing environment there is not the slightest chance that sufficient resources will be applied to address Judge Makarau’s legitimate concerns.

The MDC, unlike Zanu PF, believes strongly in the need for a strong, independent Judiciary. The MDC believes in the need for our Constitution to be amended to ensure that there is an effective balance of powers amongst the three arms of government, namely the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. The MDC believes that in order for the Judiciary to become strong and independent there needs to more than just changes to the Constitution; in addition sufficient resources must be made available to the Judiciary through the national budget. Accordingly when the MDC comes to power it will not only amend the Constitution (if it hasn’t been amended positively already) but will also make the Judiciary a budgetary priority. Monies presently allocated to institutions designed to prolong Zanu PF’s unhappy rule will be diverted to promote justice and the well being of the Zimbabwean people.

In the interim we urge the Judiciary to change its ways and to turn over a new leaf this year. It has a role to play in fairly applying the law and by doing all it can to strike down laws which clearly violate our Constitution and which offend international laws, norms and morality. South African judges did that with great distinction during apartheid and we look forward to our Judges emulating their fine example. If our Judges act in this manner then they will play their own part in bringing an end to tyranny. That in itself will result in the legitimate concerns raised by Judge Makarau being addressed earlier than will be the case if tyrannical rule is allowed to go on indefinitely.

David Coltart MP
Shadow Justice Minister
Zimbabwe

Bulawayo 16th January 2007

Posted in Statements | 4 Comments

Statement regarding Supreme Court challenge against Constitutional Amendment 17

Heads of argument (attached below) were filed in the High Court of Zimbabwe this morning by lawyers representing Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd (a Zimbabwean farming company) in a Supreme Court application in which the constitutionality of Amendment 17 to the Zimbabwean Constitution is challenged. Whilst this is a private initiative, and I should stress the MDC has not been involved with the case, I commend these Heads and the case generally.

Constitutional Amendment 17, passed in 2005, removed the right of the Courts to adjudicate in land acquisition matters. In doing so a horse and carriage was driven through the fundamental democratic right of due process, especially the right to have one’s rights determined by an independent court. The amendment also shattered any notion that we have a genuine separation of powers in Zimbabwe and that there is any reasonable balance between the powers exercised by the executive, legislature and judiciary.

Since the amendments were first tabled in Parliament our view in the opposition has always been that the amendments were so far reaching that they actually destroyed the very core of our Constitution, and therefore even though procedurally Amendment 17 was passed correctly in Parliament, it remains illegal. In essence our view has always been that one cannot pass any amendment to the Constitution, just because one may have a 2/3rds majority. There are some rights so sacrosanct, so part of the fundamental core and structure of the constitution, that if they are removed from a constitution, that constitution is rendered meaningless.

If Amendment 17 had been left unchallenged the Zanu PF regime would believe that it can amend any aspect of the Constitution with impunity. That certainly appears to be the mindset of Robert Mugabe and others in Zanu PF who believe that a Presidential term can be extended by a constitutional amendment. That notion too violates a core principle of any constitutional democracy, namely that universally politicians are elected for a defined and restricted period, with a limited time mandate, and once elected politicians cannot extend that mandate by simply amending the constitution. Accordingly it is in this context that this present case must also be seen in a broader context, namely a challenge to the notion that Zanu PF can change any aspect of the Zimbabwean Constitution at will.

These Heads, drafted by two of the finest Constitutional lawyers in Southern Africa, Jeremy Gauntlett SC and Adrian De Bourbon SC, make out ,in my view, an unanswerable case that the constitutional amendments excluding the jurisdiction of the Courts should be struck down.

Skeptics may question why constitutional challenges like this are brought before the Zimbabwean Supreme Court when so many other cases have been lost there since 2001. The reason is simple – we must make these arguments so that there is no hiding place for those in the Zanu PF regime who argue that they have acted lawfully. There must be an historical record for the future to show that these brazenly illegal acts were challenged; that there was never any consensus about what has happened. Furthermore we must do all we can to expose those judges who are more politicians than judges. They too must be given no place to hide in the future. Our Judges must confront these outrageous violations of our Constitution and choose where they stand. We need clear unequivocal statements from them to show whether they stand on the side of tyranny or justice.

One of the peculiarities of living under tyranny is that both the oppressors and the oppressed think that tyrannies last for ever. The oppressors continue to act (as vividly demonstrated in Amendment 17) as if they are not subject to universally accepted human rights and norms, and never will be. The oppressed are so downcast that they cannot believe that things will ever change. Bizarrely both oppressors and the people they oppress believe that the oppressors can do literally anything with impunity, indefinitely. History gives the lie to that fallacy. Zimbabwe will be no different; this tyranny will end, and possibly much sooner than anyone dares to hope for. And when tyranny ends justice, as the prophet Amos stated thousands of years ago, will “roll on like a river”.

When tyranny ends in Zimbabwe the arguments raised in this case will help us to restore justice in many ways. Not only will the arguments be used to establish the individual rights of Zimbabweans but they (and the judgment which will eventually be handed down in response to the arguments) will also help us determine in future which judges are truly committed to the principles of a constitutional democracy, the rule of law and the application of universal human rights without fear or favour. There will be no place in the future democratic Zimbabwe’s judiciary for judges who clearly demonstrate now that they are not committed to those fundamental principles.

David Coltart MP

Shadow Justice Minister
Zimbabwe

Bulawayo
15th January 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE Case No SC 124/2006

HELD AT HARARE

In the matter between:

MIKE CAMPBELL (PRIVATE) LIMITED First Applicant

and

WILLIAM MICHAEL CAMPBELL Second Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR
LAND, LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT First Respondent

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Second Respondent

HEADS OF ARGUMENT FOR THE APPLICANTS

INTRODUCTION

1. In this matter, brought directly to this Honourable Court in terms of section 24 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the Applicants seek the following redress in terms of section 24 (4):
a. A declaration that section 16B of the Constitution, introduced by the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act (No. 17) 2005, infringes fundamental rights to the rule of law and to due process entrenched in the Declaration of Rights, thus violates the essential features or core values of the Constitution and is accordingly

invalid and unconstitutional notwithstanding that it was enacted in compliance with the procedural requirements of section 52 of the Constitution;
b. A declaration that the Applicants rights to receive fair compensation for the acquisition of their property before or within a reasonable time after the acquisition of that property have been violated and accordingly the acquisition of the property is unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
Alternatively, redress in this respect is sought directing the acquiring authority to comply fully with Part VA of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10] within 30 days of the date of the order of this Honourable Court.
c. A declaration that the acquisition of the farm belonging to the First Applicant was unlawful as it contravened the rights against discrimination based on colour enshrined in section 23 of the Constitution.

2. The Opposing Affidavit of the First Respondent takes this matter no further. His response advances no facts in rebuttal. No opposing papers have been filed by the Second Respondent. The matter is accordingly to be determined exclusively on the Applicant’s facts. The purpose of filing these Heads of Argument is to allow for the set-down of this matter without further delay by the Respondents.

ESSENTIAL FACTS
3. The First Applicant is the registered owner of a farm known as Mount Carmell. It became the registered owner in 1999 wi

Posted in Statements | 3 Comments

Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world

Dear Friends,

As some of you know I have been speaking recently about the appalling fact that Zimbabwe now has the lowest life expectancy in the world (women 34 and men 37). Some of you may have wondered whether I had my facts right. It is often hard to graphically illustrate the scale of death in Zimbabwe and as a result the enormity of what is going on is not appreciated by many. In this morning’s Herald newspaper (Government controlled) there is the following little story tucked away:

Most Harare cemeteries almost full.
A critical shortage of burial space is looming in Harare, as most cemeteries are almost full owing to high mortality. A recent report from the Town Planning Department noted that the current active cemeteries, Mabvuku, which is 75 percent full, Warren Hills and Granville A and B were filling up at a very fast rate. At the rate at which people are dying, the four cemeteries may last for only about a year before they fill up.”

This story is just the tip of the iceberg. Cemeteries are filling up throughout the country. But no blood is being split – people are just fading away, dying quietly and being buried quietly with no fanfare – and so there is little international media attention.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) figures released earlier this year have attracted hardly any media attention and yet they should shout out the gravity of the situation for those who care. It is important to note that these figures relate to 2004 since then the situation in Zimbabwe has worsened dramatically. (Link to Annex 1, Basic Indicators for all Member States – WHO Report 2006)

I highlight a few comparative life expectancy figures:

Comparative Life Expectancy Figures (WHO 2006)

Zimbabwe is not a nation at war. It used to be able to feed itself and its neighbours. Zimbabwe used to have one of the highest life expectancy rates in Africa, up with South Africa. And these figures cannot just be blamed on Aids. Our neighbouring countries have the same incidence of Aids as us but their life expectancy figures are better (some substantially better) than ours as is demonstrated below:

Comparative Life Expectancy Figures for Southern African Countries with High Incidence of HIV/AIDS (WHO 2006)

The reason Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world is because there is no other country in the world where there is the following unique combination of factors:

  • one of the highest HIV/Aids infection rates in the world;
  • pathetic amounts spent on ARV medication by a Government that is more concerned about importing military aircraft from China than it is in protecting the lives of its people;
  • the fastest declining economy in the world;
  • the highest inflation rate in the world – over 10 times the next highest rate – Myanmar has a rate of 70%, Iraq a nation at war 40%;
  • the forcible displacement of some 700,000 of the urban poor last year (UN figures) and the bulk of these people still homeless over a year on;
  • several million people facing starvation;
  • Government which deliberately underplays the extent of the malnutrition crisis for political/propaganda reasons and on occasions frustrates the operations of the WFP and other humanitarian organisations.

In August 2002 Didymus Mutasa, presently the Minister for State Security (and the person in charge of Zimbabwe’s secret police) said “We would be better off with only six million people, with our own people who support the liberation struggle; we don’t want all these extra people.” Since he made those remarks the Government has deliberately withheld food aid from people in need and has made it incredibly difficult for humanitarian NGOs to operate. Human rights organisations have documented how food has been used as a political weapon. In the High Court judgement delivered on the 10th October 2005 in the case of Elton Steers Mangoma versus Didymus Mutasa, Judge Makarau, made the following finding at page 23:

I am satisfied that throughout the constituency, villagers were threatened with the withholding of food and other handouts and were denied these if they supported the MDC. It was made clear to villagers that supporting the MDC meant going without food and other handouts. The practise of withholding food and agricultural inputs was however not confined to one part of the constituency. It was practised in urban Headlands, in the resettlement areas and in the communal areas. The perpetrators of this practice were the leadership of ZANU PF at the village levels and the war veterans residing in the constituency.

In May 2005 the Government of Zimbabwe launched Operation Murambatsvina, a programme of mass forced evictions and demolitions of homes and informal businesses. The UN report released on the 22nd July 2005 estimated that 700,000 people had lost their homes, livelihoods or both. The report also stated that the Operation was carried out “with indifference to human suffering, and, repeated cases, with disregard to several provisions of national and international legal frameworks. A recent report of another NGO, The Solidarity Peace Trust, has found that in some instances half those evicted last year have already died – a direct result of this calculated act by the Government of Zimbabwe.

With an estimated 3500 Zimbabweans now dying every week (cf. Iraq with 700 per week) it would appear that the Zanu PF regime now either doesn’t care about its people or is deliberately engaged in a course of conduct designed to subjugate an entire nation. In the process hundreds of thousands arguably are dying every year in Zimbabwe; deaths which are largely preventable.

International Law has something to say about this:

Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines, inter alia, Crimes against Humanity as the acts of

“Extermination” (paragraph [b]) and “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health” (paragraph [k]) “when committed as part of a widespread attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”.

Article 7 (2) (a) of the Statute states that an “attack directed against any civilian population” means “a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts (including extermination and inhumane acts) against a civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack”. In other words “attack” does not mean necessarily a “military” attack.

Article 7 (2) (b) of the Statute states that “Extermination” includes “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the population”.

In my view crimes against humanity have been committed, indeed are still being committed, by the Zimbabwean Government against the Zimbabwean people. But the international community is complicit because it is looking the other way.

Article 1 (B) of the Core Principles of the International Responsibility to Protect Doctrine states:

Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect

The international community is failing in its duty to protect Zimbabwean women and men who can now only expect to live until the ages of 34 and 37 respectively. The silence and inactivity of the international community regarding this catastrophe is profoundly shocking.

Yours faithfully,

David Coltart MP
Shadow Justice Minister
Zimbabwe

Bulawayo 31st October 2006

Posted in Letters | 5 Comments

Transcript of the BBC HardTalk Interview

Stephen Sackur (SS) – President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is in his 80’s, his country is in economic collapse and his ruling party is divided over his succession and yet Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, seems preoccupied with internal battles. My guest today, in Johannesburg, is a senior member of the MDC and the question is does Zimbabwe’s Opposition have what it takes to mobilize the masses?

David Coltart welcome to Hard Talk.

David Coltart (DC) – Thank you.


SS
– Where do you think Zimbabwe’s Opposition should focus its efforts against Robert Mugabe now? Should it be on the streets with street protests or should it be the Parliamentary process?

DC – I think we need to realise that this isn’t actually a sprint that we had hoped but more of a marathon and we’ve got to employ a wide range of tactics against this regime; it has to be not just in the streets – it has to be in the streets to get the worlds attention – but it also needs to be in the Courts, it needs to be in Parliament and it needs to be in the international community.

SS – You say it’s not a sprint, but everybody knows that we are entering the ‘End Game’ for Robert Mugabe, he’s in his early 80’s, he’s faces the decision about what to do in 2008 when his current term runs out. So these matters are now pressing – you cannot wait and decide strategy in the future.

DC – No, no, we are not waiting to decide strategy in the future, this is a plan that has been in place for a while and I think it is wrong as well to say that this is going to end with Robert Mugabe’s departure. This is a structural problem. This is an issue concerning a regime and it’s a problem that goes beyond Robert Mugabe

SS – When I asked you about street protests, you couched your answer very carefully. Does that mean you have some doubts about the decision for example of the Zimbabwe Trade Unions to go for a series of mass action protests over the next few weeks & months we believe.

DC – No, I have no doubts at all. I commend, we commend, what the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions has done. We commend their bravery and the bravery displayed by other civic organizations such as WOZA and the National Constitutional Assembly. What we do say, however, is that this must be well organized and that it shouldn’t be the only focus.

SS – But hasn’t it been well organized?

DC – I think it has been very well organized.

SS – Do you think it seems like the Trade Unions were taken aback when the first rash of demonstrations took place, there were beatings, there were mass arrests and we saw Wellington Chibhebhe saying that perhaps they had to rethink, perhaps there will have to some sort of temporary suspension from protests. Were you surprised by Mugabe’s reaction?

DC – I think they were taken aback by the preemptive nature of the arrests even before they had commenced the demonstrations.

SS – Isn’t that odd that the opposition, as a whole, is still taken aback by the fierce response of the Mugabe regime which has been in power for 26 years and over the last 6 or 7 years has shown itself time and again to be prepared to use force to quell all street protests.

DC – I would agree with that, I think that many of the people, for example, in the north of the country have been taken aback by what has happened in Zimbabwe over the last 6 years. Those of us who come from the South West of the country of course know the true nature of this regime because we saw what it did in Matabeleland in the 1980’s and so we haven’t been surprised by the reaction of this regime. I think the farming community especially was absolutely staggered. They enjoyed 20 years of bliss and many people in Harare and in the North and East of the country have been completely taken aback.

SS – That was understandable 6 years ago maybe but it’s less understandable today.

DC – Well, I am always amazed by the brazenness of this regime. I’ve been surprised myself. I’ve been working in human rights for 23 years in Zimbabwe and I was staggered by the brazenness of what they did to the Trade Union leaders by beating them in the manner they did. They did not even try to give the excuse that they were beaten up in the streets. They were taken into cells and beaten up systematically.


SS
– But you see a lot of people outside Zimbabwe will wonder at your surprise when in 2005, we had 700,000 people rendered homeless because of the mass clearance of shanty towns around some of Zimbabwe’s biggest cities. We’ve had the persistent reports from the Human Rights Groups of not just torture and beatings but also murder carried out by the Mugabe regime – and you tell me you are surprised that Union leaders were still being beating.

DC – Well I am not surprised that they are still being beaten; I am surprised that the regime has allowed the façade of civility to drop. One of the things that has distinguished the Mugabe, the Zanu PF, regime, from, for example, a regime like Arap Moi’s regime, is that they have shown some finesse in the past: they’ve always described themselves as democrats; they’ve always been conscious of their international image. So we are not surprised by the brutality but we are surprised by the brazenness of it.

SS – Your Opposition movement is split, why?

DC – What the world needs to understand is that any organization, any group of people, who are put under as much stress as the opposition have been in Zimbabwe in the last 6 years are ultimately going to crack. That’s what happens to marriages, many divorces …..

SS – So the Movement for Democratic Changes has cracked has it?

DC – I think it has cracked but this is a direct result of 6 years of brutality. Morgan Tsvangirai has been subjected to a treason trial before a judge who received a farm – he faced the death penalty. That has an impact on a person and the same applies to the rest of us.

SS – No one would doubt that Morgan Tsvangirai has suffered over the last 6 years and now it seems you have abandoned him.

DC – I don’t think we have abandoned him. There are as we speak, talks taking place to try and reunite or get a coalition agreed to. But those of us who are no longer with him have said that we need to go back to our founding principles and we don’t believe that Morgan Tsvangirai is the problem. We believe that there are people who have infiltrated who need to be dealt with by him and when that happens I have no doubt that a united front will be presented again.

SS – What kind of people had infiltrated?

DC – Six years ago, when the MDC was set up, I have no doubt that the Director General of the CIO was given a specific mandate to infiltrate….

SS – Mugabe’s Central Intelligence Organisation?

DC – That’s right, Zimbabwe’s equivalent of Stazi… was given a mandate to infiltrate and disrupt and if possible to destroy the opposition and I have no doubt that people have infiltrated during that period of 6 years and those are the people who are primarily responsible for organising and perpetrating the violence against members of the MDC.

SS – So you are talking about people close to Morgan Tsvangirai who, in your opinion, are infiltrators working for Mugabe’s intelligence?

DC – I wouldn’t say they are close to Morgan Tsvangirai, but they have certainly got themselves into key positions. I don’t think that Morgan Tsvangirai as an individual condones what has happened.

SS – But the fact is the split occurred when you and a number of your senior colleagues in the MDC decided it was right and proper to fight the Senate Elections that Mugabe had called for November of 2005. Mr Tsvangirai, the leader of the Party, thought that was plain wrong.

DC – I think that the Senate Election issue was simply a ‘smoke screen’; it was not the real reason. There had been issues building over time and it just so happened that it was the Senate Election that acted as a catalyst for the split that occurred in October last year. There were philosophical differences.

SS – Philosophical, in what sense?

DC – In essence, I think it was a difference in views as how best to tackle the regime, with some saying we needed to use all means at our disposal, including participation in obviously flawed Senatorial Elections, whereas another faction of the Party believed that the electoral process was so flawed in Zimbabwe that it should be abandoned.

SS – Is it also the case that you believe that some in the Party wanted direct action perhaps contemplating violent action and you were not prepared to go down that path.

DC – Well, I personally have never been prepared to go down that route. Not just for moral reasons, but for practical reasons. I believe it would be foolhardy to tackle the Zanu PF regime on the ground it has the most experience in.

SS – We see that Morgan Tsvangirai says that your faction, the faction that chose to fight these, as you called them, ‘deeply flawed Senate Elections’ was playing directly into the hands of Robert Mugabe. You offered some sort of legitimacy to those elections, you also by creating this split within the Movement for Democratic Change did the work of the Mugabe regime for it.

DC – I don’t think we legitimised the elections at all. All rational people throughout the world know that Zimbabwe’s elections are deeply flawed ….


SS
– If they are pointless, why fight them?

DC – It comes back to the philosophical question of – “are you going to use all means at your disposal or are you going to cut off those means?” The problem about not participating in elections is where does that end? Does it mean that one does not go into Parliament? Does it mean you don’t use the Court system and what signal does that send to the Zanu PF regime? Is the signal that you have abandoned your policies, your principles of using non violent methods of tackling this regime or is it that you are going to participate using the same methods used over the last 6 years?

SS – You have just given me a hint that behind the scenes there are some sorts of talks going on to try and heal the deep rift between the Movement for Democratic Change.

DC – One of the ways in which one can facilitate unity, once again, is by employing a certain term – ‘tough love’. You have to build up a faction so that it cannot be disregarded. Once it is there as a political force, that will encourage those, the hawks in the other side who believed that the Mutambara faction was not going to be factor in Zimbabwe politics, to think again. You force their hand to reunite and when those two groups reunite either as a united opposition or in some form of coalition or alliance then we will present a very powerful force against the Zanu PF regime.

SS – Do you think the problem perhaps lies in the nature of the Movement for Democratic Change? Did it not, in early days, receive substantial amounts of money for example from white farmers? We all know that Robert Mugabe made a great deal of political play of pictures of white farmers writing out cheques to the MDC. Haven’t you always been vulnerable to Mugabe’s powers that in the end you are a tool to the colonialist, imperialist powers in Zimbabwe and beyond?

DC – Let me challenge that assumption in the first place, you say that we received substantial funding from white farmers, that is part of Robert Mugabe’s propaganda, he was fortunate enough to get one television clip but we certainly didn’t get substantial funding. The MDC ….

SS – Are you denying that white farmers were early supporters in 1999 of the MDC?

DC – Of course white farmers were supporters, as well as people from the Churches, Human Rights groups, the Trade Union movement and other groups that wanted to restore the rule of law in Zimbabwe. But to say that we were somehow aligned with white farmers isn’t correct at all.

SS – Let’s be blunt about it. In a sense the extent of the problem you have is that you stand before me as a senior leader and spokesman of the Movement for Democratic Change as a white Zimbabwean. That is a problem for your Movement given the way Mugabe consistently plays the liberationist and nationalist card.

DC – Well it may appear to be a problem externally, but certainly internally it isn’t a problem. I was elected last year in a predominantly black constituency, a working class constituency, which is 95% black. I stood against a black woman Cabinet Minister and beat her with a 76% majority. There’s no problem within Zimbabwe. It’s one of the remarkable things about Zimbabwe, I think we have gone a step further, several steps further, than for example South Africa – race is a propaganda ploy employed by Robert Mugabe which gets a lot of currency in the international community but does not rub within Zimbabwe.

SS – But Mugabe is a canny political operator. I’m sure you can see that after 26 years. He does not make these statements and continue his tirades against people like you being the tool of Tony Blair and the colonial powers for no reason. He does it because it gives him political leverage.

DC – I think it used to give him political leverage but I that the truth is now coming out in Zimbabwe and I think that even in the region if we look at the last SADC Heads of Government meeting held recently in Lesotho, you will see that Robert Mugabe’s propaganda, the use of race, the use of land, is wearing thin.

SS – Can you be a coherent Movement and such a broad church bringing everybody from the white farmers on the one hand to the poorest black Zimbabwean who has suffered under the slum clearances on the other. Can there be a meaningful political party that embraces all of those people and everyone in-between?

DC – Well, we were originally a very broad church. White farmers are no longer a factor, there are perhaps 300 white farmers on the land, whites have gone out in their droves from Zimbabwe. There are hardly any whites left in the country. So it’s not as broad a church as it was and I think in the context of 6 years of struggle, we are refining our policies, we have a clearer ideological and philosophical direction.


SS
– How bad do you think can things get in Zimbabwe? The UN special envoy to Humanitarian Affairs has called it a meltdown, inflation is running at over 1000%, 80% unemployment, many millions of people living on international food aid. Can it get worse?

DC – It can get far worse. One of the tragedies of not doing this interview in Zimbabwe is that you don’t see for yourself what is going on. Life for the average Zimbabwean is sheer hell now with rampant inflation, food shortages and an increasingly authoritarian and paranoid regime. It’s a hell hole at present. But unfortunately when we look elsewhere in Africa, if you take the extreme examples of Somalia and Liberia, it can go a long way down. One just hopes that because Zimbabwe is situated in the middle of Southern Africa, regional leaders will understand that this is a cancer in our region and that they need to take stronger measures to reign in this regime so that we can negotiate a way out of this mess.

SS – Do you think that Mugabe is going to have to go before his term ends in 2008?

DC – I think if we are to stop the suffering of Zimbabweans, if we are to tackle the economy, he needs to go today, he needs to have gone yesterday. But I think he is so fearful that he will hang on to the death.


SS
– We spoke to Jonathan Moyo, who as you well know used to be his Information Minister now an Independent MP. He says that the ‘end game’ is upon us and that when it comes there will be huge splits within Zanu PF, the ruling party. He said there could even be civil war. Do you believe that?

DC – I believe that there is a danger of that. However I think what will restrain people is the memory of two civil wars in the recent past – the Liberation Struggle in the 1970’s and Gukurahundi in the 1980’s. Those two civil wars act as an enormous restraint on the people. Zimbabweans are remarkably peace loving as a result. But let me say this – that the only difference between the MDC and Zanu PF at present, is that the MDC’s split is out in the open, whereas Zanu PF has managed to paper over its split but the divisions are very serious. I think that change will come when the military and the police finally realize that the pool of patronage used by Robert Mugabe has dried up. When that happens, there’s a danger that they will fall under one or other of the Zanu PF divisions or factions and that could cause trouble.

SS – There have been negotiations in the last couple of years between members of the Opposition MDC and Zanu PF – do you believe there can be negotiations now or in the very near future?

DC – I think there have to be negotiations. One of the political realities of Zimbabwe is that despite what the Zanu PF regime has brought to bear on Zimbabweans, they still retain enormous support in certain areas of the country. For example in the Mashonaland rural areas up in the north of the country, Zanu PF still has core support and to that extent it remains a massive factor in Zimbabwe politics. There can be no settlement of the Zimbabwean crisis without Zanu PF’s involvement in that. Now I hope, of course, that we can deal with moderates within Zanu PF, and there are some, and bring them to the negotiating table so that we can thrash out an agreement regarding a new constitution which in turn will lead to the first genuinely free and fair elections in Zimbabwe since Independence.

SS – But are you prepared to say to Robert Mugabe, if he is to retire from the scene, and to his key lieutenants – are you prepared to say to them that you will offer them guarantees of safety, of the clearance of any suggestion of legal action against them from the table as part of a deal?

DC – I have much deeper human rights than political roots. I was a human rights Lawyer before going into politics, so the thought of granting amnesty to people guilty of war crimes is anathema, but that is a personal view. We have to take a practical decision; we have to weigh up whether it is worthwhile pursuing a prosecution against Mugabe against the deaths that are taking place every week – 3500 people are dying in Zimbabwe every week though the deadly combination of AIDS, poverty and malnutrition. We have to bring an end to that and the price we may have to pay may be to grant Robert Mugabe amnesty if it is going to bring an end to this calamitous situation that we face and provide him with a safe and secure way out.

SS – And if that does not work and Jonathan Moyo is right and there is the prospect of violence, civil strife inside Zimbabwe – will the MDC, in the end, make preparations for that and in the end fight if it has to?

DC – If I have my way, we will remain committed to the principles of Gandhi and Martin Luther King – I don’t believe that any form of violence is going to help Zimbabweans, if anything it will help a ruthless and paranoid regime. This is the argument we have made for 6 years. The one thing that the Zanu PF regime wants is for us to take up arms of war because they fought a guerilla war, they have the expertise…….


SS
– Sorry to interrupt. Are you sure that no body in the MDC is currently contemplating or preparing for armed action?

DC – I can say, with absolute assurance, that in our faction ….

SS – Well it’s not actually what I asked you, what about the Movement for Democratic Change generally?

DC – Well I don’t know what some of the people who have been infiltrated into the organisation are planning but I certainly know my colleagues of like-mind in the other faction, people like Tendai Biti, and Morgan Tsvangirai himself, are not contemplating that and certainly if any of them are contemplating that then that would certainly secure us never joining up with them again.


SS
– You spent more than 20 years fighting for human rights in Zimbabwe, you’ve spent the last 7 years involved with the Movement for Democratic Change – are you more pessimistic now than you’ve ever been about Zimbabwe’s short and medium term future?

DC – No I’m not pessimistic surprisingly enough, because I study history and I realise that dictators come and go and they are often the authors of their own demise. So when one looks at Hitler in his final days he became more extreme, more paranoid and I see the same happening to this regime. If anything I think the regime is speeding up its own demise and so in the context of this being a process, I see us nearing the end.


SS
– David Coltart, thank you very much for being on Hard Talk.

DC – Thank you.

Transcript of BBC HardTalk Interview with David Coltart – 12 October 2006

Posted in Downloadable documents | Leave a comment