Reforms and elections: The need for a Transitional Executive Council

When South Africa was faced with the problems of negotiating its transition by an election in 1994, it produced an extremely important mechanism to ensure that the election would be free and fair, and that the overwhelming power of the South African state (dominated by the National Party) could not be used to the advantage of the government in power. It did this by creating a Transitional Executive Council, a body that would exercise some of the delegated powers of the government and Parliament. This was a highly successful innovation that, in fact, was crucial to South Africa holding a wholly valid election, and moving safely to a change of regime. The TEC idea has considerable merit for Zimbabwe presently.

Consider the objects of the TEC:

(a) creating and promoting a climate for free political participation by endeavouring to:

(i) eliminate any impediments to legitimate political activities;

(ii) eliminate any form of intimidation which has a bearing on the said transition;

(iii) ensure that all political parties are free to canvass support from voters, to organize and hold meetings and to have access to all voters for the purposes thereof;

(iv) ensure the full participation of women in the transitional and electoral structures and processes; and

(v) ensure that no Government or administration exercises any of its powers in such a way as to advantage or prejudice any political party;

(b) creating and promoting conditions conducive to the holding of free and fair elections;

 

Now the whole object of passing the Transitional Executive Council Act in 1993 was specifically to overcome similar problems to those currently faced by Zimbabwe. This highly innovative and courageous solution to the polarization in South Africa needs investigation by Zimbabweans[1].

Zimbabwe currently has a security sector blatantly (and illegally) expressing affiliation to apolitical party; the whole administrative apparatus (civil servants, local government officials, traditional leaders, etc.) of the state also affiliated to one political party; and finally the (mostly) discredited electoral machinery under the control of one political party. These are hardly the conditions under which a genuine, democratic election can take place, and this is the litany continuously and loudly proclaimed by political parties and civil society.

But how to then change this situation in the rapidly closing space ahead of the elections? Certainly there is insufficient time for legislative reform: there was barely enough time to pass the amendments to the Electoral Act, although this now seems remedied by Presidential decree. And it is certainly the case that both political parties and civil society generally has paid far too much time to the constitutional process and too little time to the process of reform. There have been many opportunities for the two MDCs to engage the crucial matters around reform, but this is not the place to recollect the missed opportunities. There has been a great opportunity under the GPA for civil society to re-position itself again as the watchdogs over the Inclusive Government, but this too has been largely lost.

This may all be water under the bridge with elections now slated for 31^st July, but what was needed is for the political parties to agree that, taking a leaf out of the South African book, there is need to create the appropriate oversight bodies to ensure that the elections conform to the SADC Principles and Guidelines for the Holding of Democratic Elections. As was the case in South Africa, the government needed to create a Transitional Executive Council, and the requisite number of sub-Councils) to oversee the process.

This, of course, requires the political will to delegate much of the powers of the Government and the Presidency to a new body, but this is what was done for the South African elections in 1994, and the world acclaimed both the process and the wisdom of the political leaders: Nelson Mandela and F W de Klerk were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

How would this work in practice?

By Act of Parliament, an overall body would have been established to run the country up until the results were announced. This body would have been composed of representatives of all political parties, and it, in turn, would have established the sub-bodies to provide oversight of the electoral process. This needed not to be as comprehensive as was the case in South Africa where a large number of sub-councils were established: law and order, stability and security, defence, intelligence, foreign affairs, status of women, finance, and regional and local government and traditional authorities.

For Zimbabwe, only four key sub-councils would have been necessary: security sector (police, army and intelligence), media, local government, and traditional leaders. These would have been sufficient to ensure that the partisanship seen in all these areas was at least minimized. All Zimbabweans know that these are the critical institutions that allow or disallow free democratic activity, and, if constrained from being partisan, they could create the conditions for the kinds of poll that all Zimbabweans dream of. That Zimbabweans dream of freely and fairly voting is so evident from the recent referendum: that one million more voters turned out than in the previous elections in 2008 not only points out how many are currently disenfranchised, but also shows how keen Zimbabwean citizens are to participate in the political life of the country.

Could Zimbabweans ask for any less than this in our extremely vexed and polarized position? Could SADC ask for less in the light of their continual demand for reform? Will the President take this final opportunity to leave the legacy of an election that all can be proud of? Perhaps then we can have an election where, whichever party wins, the citizens can move into to the future knowing that they have freely elected the government of their choice?

However, another opportunity has been lost, and once again democracy is likely to be the loser in Zimbabwe.

---

[1] For a copy of the Transitional Executive Council Act,  see the Southern African Legal Information Institute. ]http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/teca1993336/]

THE ELECTION DATE CIRCUS, ACT II?

In several articles recently posted by RAU, it was noted that the President cannot comply with both the Electoral Law as it currently stands, and with the Constitutional Court ruling that elections be held by 31^st July, 2013. Today’s (10.06.13) Herald has Professor Madhuku stating in effect “No problem. Mugabe can just use the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act to alter all the necessary provisions of the Electoral Act to enable him to meet the deadline”.

This suggestion gives rise to several deep ironies. It was Madhuku himself who is supposed to have hailed the Concourt ruling on the ground it would be undemocratic for the President to “rule by decree” (i.e. use the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act) without Parliament to operate as a check on his power. So now, in order to meet the Concourt deadline, it is suggested that the President unilaterally, without the consent of the other major parties, and without the oversight of Parliament alter the law governing an election in which he is a candidate. The law is thus to be changed to cater for an ah hoc court order issued due to a breach of the Constitution by the President. Any problems with the democratic nature of that, Professor Madhuku?

The second irony is that the new Constitution specifically includes a provision that once election dates are announced the electoral laws cannot be changed. This provision was undoubtedly inserted to prevent that which had happened before, when the President took advantage of the fact that Parliament was dissolved to issue a decree reinserting a provision into the Electoral Act which Parliament had but a few months before removed – one which allowed police officers into polling stations.

The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act provides that any laws made by the President in term of this Act must be laid before Parliament within eight days, whereupon Parliament may repeal or amend the law, or leave it as is.

However, the question will arise then as to whether this provision will apply if the election dates have been announced. Our Concourt may well hold that the provision in the Constitution that the electoral law cannot be changed overrides this provision of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act. The irony then is that a provision designed to prevent the President from altering electoral law, has in fact strengthened his power to do so, as once the President has unilaterally made the law and announced the dates, it cannot be changed by Parliament. Furthermore, while the whole reasoning behind the Concourt deadline is that rule by the President without Parliament is undesirable, the effect is, according to Madhuku, to compel him to do precisely that.

However, it may be that on a correct interpretation of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act and the new Constitution this situation will not arise.

To comply with the Concourt ruling the President will have to alter provisions of the Electoral Act specifically agreed between the main political parties and which formed part of the 2007 amendments to the Act – that is, that voter registration must end 24 hours before the nomination court sits. It is this provision which prevents the President from complying with the 30 day registration period in the Constitution and the Concourt order.

However, The Act does not allow the President tomake a law “providing for any … matter or thing which the Constitution requires to be provided for by, rather than in terms of, an Act”. Voter registration is provided for by the new Constitution and section 157(1)(b) is to this effect:

157(1)  An Act of Parliament must provide for the conduct of elections and referendums to which this Constitution applies, and in particular for the following matters…

The “matters” then listed include proportional representation, the election of persons with disabilities, the election of provincial and metropolitan councils and the registration of voters.

So it is an Act of Parliament that must provide for this, and not a Presidential decree.

If there is to be compliance with the law, it seems that the President will have to ask the Concourt for a postponement, which he proved very good at during the by-election saga. The problem for the President is that if he is able to ask for a postponement to another date, this will then make it clear that the 31^st July, 2013 is not carved in stone by the law, as ZANU PF would like the populace to believe.

New Bottles: Old Wine-An analysis of the Constitutional Court Judgement on Election Dates

On Friday 31^st May, 2013 the newly established Constitutional Court issued its first judgment, that is the case of Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire  v Robert Gabriel Mugabe N.O. and Ors CCZ1/13. The judgment concerned an urgent application by Mr. Mawarire, brought on the basis of a claim that the President was constitutionally obliged to set the dates for Zimbabwe’s next general election no later than the day after the 29^th June, 2013 when Parliament reaches the end of its constitutionally prescribed five year term. The failure to do so, Mr. Mawarire maintained, was a breach of his constitutional rights and would have the unconstitutional effect of the country being governed without a Parliament.

The case had various bizarre and curious facets even before the judgment was delivered. President Mugabe had repeatedly stated his desire to hold elections as soon as possible after the passage of the new constitution into law on the 22^nd May, 2013 and well before October 29^th, 2013, the date the MDC formations had contended was the latest possible constitutional date for the poll.

Thus the immediate question which arose was, if this was the President’s desire, why did he not exercise his presidential prerogative to dissolve Parliament and announce the earlier election date? It is clear that Parliament was required to bring the new constitution into being, and hence Parliament could not have been dissolved before the Constitutional Bill became law. However, did this in any way mean that the President could not have proclaimed the dissolution of Parliament at a future date that allowed ample time for Constitutional Bill to be passed?

There were also several other complications related to the proclamation of elections:

1. The MDC formations and SADC all insisted that various reforms had to take place before elections
2. Prior to the adoption of the new constitution, it was a constitutional requirement that the MDC-T Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had to be consulted on the date of the dissolution of Parliament, if it were to be dissolved by proclamation rather than by automatic dissolution through the passing of time

It would not have been politically expedient for the President to have brought the application before the Constitutional Court himself. However, a, Mr. Mawarire stepped up to the plate and brought the application “against” the President.  Unsurprisingly, the President’s “opposing” paper, rather than disputing the Applicant’s case, as is usual, wholeheartedly agreed with his argument, though did not it seems, having agreed with the Applicant’s interpretation of the law, offer any reasons why he had then failed to comply with it

The issue before the nine member bench of the Supreme Court, sitting as the Constitutional Court, was to determine the chronological parameters mandated by the constitution for the holding of a general election following the dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of parliament can take place in one of two ways;

1. Either following a proclamation by the President, or
2. Through the effluxion of time when the five year term of Parliament ends.

The determination of the issue revolved around the interpretation of subsection 58(1) of the old constitution, as read with subsections 63(4) and 63(7), which are still to apply until the new constitution becomes fully operational.

Section 58(1) provides as follows:

A general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under section 63(7) or, as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63(4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, fix.

The judges of the new Constitutional Court seized with the matter were not fresh judicial appointees.. Chief Justice Chidyausiku wrote the judgment for the majority.. In the judgment  he construed section 58(1) so that its meaning became ambiguous. This was done by violating some very basic rules of grammar in the following way.

He inserted colons into the section (where none existed in the original) ostensibly to highlight what he claimed was the ambiguous nature of the provision, but in factto creating an ambiguity that did not exist before.

The insertion of punctuation can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence, for example:

‘While the mother was cooking the baby her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

When punctuated, the sentence is easier to read.

‘While the mother was cooking, the baby, her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

But leave out a comma and the text becomes more sinister

‘While the mother was cooking the baby, her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

By inserting a colon after “on” in section 58(1), Chief Justice Chidyausiku altered the meaning of the provision to read:

          58(1) A general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on:

i)                    such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under section 63(7) or,

ii)                  as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63(4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, fix.

 By the insertion of the colons, Justice Chiyausiku creates a new meaning for section 58(1), which gives the Applicant the desired result. That meaning is that the President must have set the election date within a period of four months before the dissolution of Parliament and that an election should be held upon the dissolution of Parliament.

This is not what the law (without the colons) says. The law says an election shall be held within a period of four months AFTER the President issues the proclamation Parliament dissolving parliament or within a period of four months AFTER Parliament dissolves automatically at the end of its five year term. That five year term  ends on 29 June and the law allows the President to continue in office, in this event, after Parliament has been dissolved, but with the requirement that he to set an election date within four months from the time of such dissolution..

Further, the Chief Justice in coming to his conclusion made the assertion that reading the ‘after’ to mean precisely that i.e. ‘after’ would create a ‘mind boggling’ situation in which the country existed without Parliament. This is not a sound argument. The Chief Justice knows very well that:

 

1. In the past the date for an election has always been announced AFTER, and not BEFORE, dissolution of Parliament which has meant that the President previously has continued to be in office without a ParliamentThe Constitution, in fact, specifically allows for Parliament to be ‘prorogued’  (delayed) for periods of as much as 180 days,[1] and the power to prorogue Parliament for such an extended period  lies with the President under the current constitution.
2. The executive continued to function without legislative oversight for five months between the dissolution of Parliament for the March 2008 election and the start of the seventh Parliament in 2008 without anyone’s mind being boggled or any ruling of absurdity being made.

Even if this judgment is correct, the Chief Justice did not avert to some very important facts that may make it impossible for the President to comply with the 31 July deadline:

1. Provisions of the new constitution, which are effective from the date of publication, stipulate that there must be at least 44 days between the proclamation of the election dates and the Election Day itself.
2. The new constitution also provides that the Electoral Act cannot be changed once the election dates have been announced.
3. The Electoral Act must be amended to bring it into line with the new constitution, especially in regard to the introduction of a system of proportional representation.
4. The President cannot proclaim the election dates until the amendments to the Electoral Act have been finalised.
5. There is no guarantee that the amendments to the Electoral Act will be agreed upon  and finalised at least 44 days before the 31^st July, 2013. This means that the President may then either have to violate the constitutional requirement that 44 days elapse between the el^ectoral proclamation and the election itself, or fail to meet the 31^st July, 2013 deadline.

 

---

[1] Section 62(2) of the Constitution.

This article was adopted from an opinion piece written by Derek Matyszak. To read more please folow this link on the RAU Website

Prioritising education on the political agenda

The  “shocking pass rates” or should we say failure rates in the 2012 Ordinary level results are just a symptom of deep-rooted problems that have been developing in Zimbabwe’s education sector over the years. Reforming the education sector should be a top priority for any government or party that seriously wants to take charge of the echelons of power. This can be done by placing education at the core of their campaign strategy. The RAU reports (“Every School has a Story to Tell: A Study into Teachers’ Experiences with Elections in Zimbabwe” and “Political violence and intimidation against Teachers in Zimbabwe” available on the RAU website documented the crisis from the perspective of politically motivated attacks on teachers and the impact this violence has had on not only the teachers, but also on the economy, especially the increase in unemployment amongst the youths. RAU also looked at the impact of exposure to violence on school children when teachers were attacked in front of pupils.

In its recommendations RAU spear-headed a campaign to have schools declared as zones of peace z and for all political activities taking place at schools to be banned. The rationale behind this is that in times of major political events in Zimbabwe such as elections, considerable amount of learning time is lost as politicians seize schools and school facilities to coordinate their campaign meetings. At the height of violence in 2008, 94% of all schools in rural areas were shut down as teachers fled violence and therefore there was no point in parents sending their children to school. In most cases, teachers and pupils were forced to attend rallies and these were done during school hours. To demonstrate that these assertions are not just historical reporting, it is alleged that as we speak some schools in Manicaland and Mashonaland East have been forced to give offices to militias or ‘war veterans so that they can coordinate their activities ahead of elections. This alone constitutes an attack on education and only a political directive can rectify that. The rationale of peace zones is derived from war situations where there is an agreement not to physically attack institutions of learning as well as medical facilities. Zimbabwe is not in a war situation, but the political situation during elections has in the past resembled ‘war’, where violence has been used as a political tool. By declaring schools as zones of peace, this allows children to continue attending school without hindrance; and protects teachers from attacks from political elements. Anything that has a negative bearing on education such as attacks on teachers is considered an attack on education. Any acts that affect the smooth running of schools/education should become punishable offences. In that light, the adoption of the new Constitution which explicitly guarantees education as a right compels government to legislate supporting laws that enable the right to be enjoyed by every child in Zimbabwe.

It is important for the Ministry of Education to carry out empirical studies on the impact of conflict on the education sector and measures to address these. Special attention should be given to solving the problems created for children due to the conflict, like mental stress, exposure to violence and displacement, by incorporating different programs of reconciliation, mutual goodwill and peace in education programs.  The link between education, peace and development is evident from the period when Zimbabwe emerged from colonial government to majority rule. At that time, education played a pivotal role in building a human capital base that is still revered throughout the world. The same period was also marked by peace and development.

While there are many factors that have contributed to the crisis in education including the decrease in donor support for education, violence is a single factor that does not require funding to change the overall outlook. It requires political will, a community shared vision that education is at the centre of communities moving from abject poverty to emancipation and that every child must be protected and supported through provision of safe schools that allow the mind to positively grow.

By declaring schools as zones of peace, the state will be taking bold steps towards redressing issues to do with community security and violence in the communities, especially violence targeting women and young girls. The campaign will ensure that the future of Zimbabwe; the youths, are not engaged in violence largely caused by idle minds as a result of a failing education system.

Being even handed under the Law

When we read in the newspaper that policemen have been charged under the Police Act for attending a political meeting we can be pleased that the Zimbabwe Republic Police are finally obeying the law that governs them. However, we have to ask whether this new found zeal for obeying the Act will now be applied in an even-handed manner? This should happen forthwith as the Police Act is unequivocal about policemen being involved in politics.

Look at what the Police Act says in Paragraph 48(1) of the Schedule to the Police Act:

48. (1) Actively participating in politics.

(2) Without derogation from the generality of subparagraph (1), a Regular Force member shall be deemed to be actively participating in politics if he—

(a) joins or associates himself with an organization or movement of a political character; or

(b) canvasses any person in support of, or otherwise actively assists, an organization or movement of a political character; or

(c) displays or wears rosettes, favours, clothing, symbols, posters, placards or like articles having a political significance; or

(d) attends a political meeting or assembly when wearing the uniform of the Police Force or any part of such uniform likely to identify him as a Regular Force member:

Provided that the provisions of this subparagraph shall not apply to a

Regular Force member who attends such meeting or assembly in uniform in the

course of his duties; or

(e) asks questions from the floor at a political meeting; or

( f ) publishes views of a political character or causes them to be published in speeches, broadcasts, letters to the press, articles, leaflets, posters, placards, books or otherwise; or

(g) does any other act whereby the public or any member thereof might reasonably be induced to identify him with an organization or movement of any political character.

photo accredited to http://www.zimeye.org

 

So it is not okay for the Commissioner-General to publicly associate himself with ZANU PF, and he should be charged. It is not okay for Assistant Commissioner, Oliver Mandipaka, to announce whilst still a serving officer that he will stand as a candidate for ZANU PF in the next elections, and he should be charged. And all officers and ranks in the ZRP that wear any insignia of a political party should be charged, but then we might no longer have a police force left. This is clearly not a trivial problem, but, in fairness, many members of the ZRP might be ignorant of Section 48 of the Police Act, as presumably were the three benighted police officers that attended a MDC-T meeting. Probably they thought they could do so since all their colleagues were taking their lead from the Commissioner-General and declaring their party affiliations.

 So this very thorny question of Security Sector Re-Alignment that SADC keeps banging on about is probably not as complicated as we all think, at least as far as the Zimbabwe Republic Police is concerned.

 There is very clear legislation under which the ZRP must operate. No member of the ZRP shall be a member of a political party, and all the Commissioner-General needs to do is set the tone.

 Firstly, he could publicly apologise for being ignorant of the Act, and publicly resign his relationship with ZANU PF if he intends to continue in his post. Or he could resign if his allegiance to ZANU PF is more important than his job.

 Secondly, if he decides to stay and has done the decent thing, apologized, and resigned from ZANU PF, he could make a public statement indicating that he will be making it clear to the members of his force that they shall all resign from any political party. Even more than this, he will make it plain to the members of the ZRP that they should act so impartially that no member of the public might reasonably be induced to identify him with an organization or movement of any political character.

 It might be that at one aspect of Security Sector Re-Alignment  could happen very easily, but, even more important than this, the ZRP could return to the position that they had in 1999 when the Helen Susman Foundation survey showed that the public had confidence in their police.

 

 

Women don’t like female bosses

As we draw closer to elections, constitutionally to be held by the 29th October 2013, Zimbabwe has been gripped with election fever.  No day goes by without a headline or an article on elections or civil society organizations putting out statements or launching campaigns and programmes related to elections. What sparks my interest is the newly launched vote for a woman campaign which is aimed at encouraging women to vote for other women in the up-coming elections at whatever level, ward, constituency, senate, and even presidential.

In principle this is a great campaign because it aims to increases the number of women in decision making positions and thereby increases the chances of women’s issues being discussed in parliament. At a national level, in line with the new constitution, hopefully will bring about the gender equality we have been seeking for decades.  The campaign has to be strategic as women need to vote for women they identify with and who can deliver once they hold the esteemed seat.  This brings about the debate about what kind of women should be voted into political positions which almost always gets tempers flaring as it is asked why women need to have certain qualities to be voted into political officers but men do not?  For me it is about a woman with potential, who recognizes her strengths and weaknesses and has the ability to ask and accept help where she is out of her depth.  It is not about her educational qualifications and how well she speaks, but how well she can articulate an issue, be it in English or in the vernacular. 

Historically, women do not hold political power; this we must accept and therefore we are not raised to aspire to take this power, our positions were to support the men and not question their decisions, this however is changing. The women that do decide to challenge this and hold political positions state that it is an uphill battle constantly: as a woman you have to work harder and prove yourself where men do not. 

Women in power have challenges not only raised by men, but by other women who do not believe that women can hold political positions. In 2012, RAU produced a report entitled Do you have the PHD Syndrome?  [available at www.researchandadvocacyunit.org]which discussed the lack of support that women give to each other. This was based on focus group discussions held with several women’s groups. The women discussed reasons why there are so few women in politics and what are the impediments for women to enter into those spaces.  And they pointed out that women too often undermine each other!

President J Banda, photo accredited to http://www.maravipost.com

There is need to address the PHD syndrome during this campaign as sweeping it under the carpet will not achieve the desired results.  Recently speaking during a new global talk show, South 2 North on Al Jazeera, Joyce Banda the President of Malawi,  the second African woman head of state after Ellen Johnson Sileaf, who came into power in April 2012 after the sudden death of President Bingu wa Mutharika, lamented the unwillingness of women to support and uplift one another.  She said that in Malawi she is supported by grassroots women as she used to work with them before taking up politics. As she said, “The problem comes when it is now women that are higher up, women that are your level that usually won’t stand with you, that usually don’t support you”. 

She said she was surprised to see the amount of support she gained from men during her ascendency to presidency.  “Men came out more than women. There were more men than women fighting for me. Women at the top don’t support one another. Women don’t like female bosses,” said Banda. This needs to change and the vote for a women campaign can go a long way to change perceptions about women leaders and their support base.

Justice in Action

The trial of Thabani Mpofu, a researcher in MDC Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s office, on charges of failing to renew a firearm licence and failure to keep the firearm in a secure place, are an eye opener for anyone who has not seen Zimbabwe’s criminal justice system at work at first hand.

The State prosecutors, the police and the presiding magistrate sitting at a Harare court have shown an alarming ignorance as to the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant and an equal ignorance as to the requirements for the lawful execution of the same.

During the proceedings, the State witnesses all claimed that the search they conducted of Thabani Mpofu’s premises and which led to the charges, was one for documentation Mr. Mpofu is alleged to have gathered relating to corruption by senior government officials. These witnesses, all police officers, were unable to tell the court what offence arises from the possession of such documentation. Furthermore, the search warrant that the police issued to themselves and which purported to authorise the search, makes no mention of any documents of this nature and thus could not justify their seizure.

However, undeterred by these legal niceties, the police proceeded to search Mr. Mpofu’s premises in the hope, it was stated in court, of being able to uncover an offence. They thought that hope was realised when they discovered a firearm, for which the licence had allegedly expired, in a built-in wall cupboard. The police proceeded to arrest Mr. Mpofu on the basis that the firearm was not kept in a safe weighing at least 50kgs or in a gun cabinet. These two places, the police claimed, are the only safe places in which a firearm might be kept securely in terms of the law. In fact, the Firearms Regulations (of which the police seemed to be unaware) specifically define a wall cupboard as one of several possible secure places, provided the cupboard has doors and a strong lock. The police made no attempt to ascertain whether the wall cupboard met these specifications. Two police detectives claimed not to be able to remember whether the cupboard had doors at all. Mr. Mpofu thus appears to have been arrested on a charge which had not even been investigated.

This leaves the alleged failure to renew a firearm licence – a trivial, technical offence which, according to a Schedule of Fines maintained by the police themselves, attracts a $5.00 fine.

Despite the minor nature of this alleged infringement of the Act, not one, but three Public Prosecutors have been lined up to try to secure Mr. Mpofu’s conviction. Seven police officers have spent over a week milling around the court to be available to give evidence and observe the proceedings when it is hoped that they have better things to do. Members of the public attending the trial were questioned by the ZRP at the police post within the magistrates court as to who they were and why they were at the court. Personal details were carefully and pointedly recorded. The police officers were genuinely confused when asked what right they had to question those attending the trial. The response was that as police officers they could question whoever they want whenever and wherever they want. All other matters that were pending or in progress before the court have been swept aside to make way for this trial.

So why has so much of the State’s human and financial resources (and we need to add to that mentioned already, the salaries of the magistrate, the court orderly, the prison officer and interpreter in attendance) been mobilised to secure a conviction in a $5.00 offence – one which is usually dealt with by way of an “admission of guilt fine” at the local police station?

Early in the proceedings, Defence Counsel argued that the chief prosecutor in the case had a grave conflict of interest. He had been named as one of the people who is a subject of the documentation pertaining to corruption complied by Mr. Mpofu and which inspired the search of Mr. Mpofu’s premises during which the firearm was discovered. This, apparently, is not the motivation for the massive deployment of State resources against Mr. Mpofu. The magistrate ruled that no such conflict of interest exists.

So what then, is the reason for this huge drain on the tax payer’s pocket? Only those who do not believe that policing, the workings of the Attorney-General’s Office and the criminal justice system are in dire need of reform, are left scratching their heads for an answer.

Zimbabwe at 33 —- what it means to me!

On the 18^th of April, Zimbabwe celebrates its independence from colonial rule. With much jubilation we the sons and daughters of the soil will remember those who gave their lives for us to be here today.

I can’t pretend to know what happened in the colonial era but my parents have painted a pretty vivid picture in my mind for me to imagine what life was in that era. It makes me grateful for all those who gave their lives; though I will never meet them I will remember their ultimate sacrifice.

What then is independence to me, a born free?  According to Wikipedia Independence is a condition of a nation,country, or state in which its residents and population, exercise self-government over the territory. Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make laws that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal definition can be provided.

The term sovereignty has always been coined loosely in Zimbabwe. For years I have heard the term Zimbabwe is a ‘sovereign’ state, so what exactly is sovereignty? I understand it to be a state that is always connected to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a “sovereign” state. This leads me to ponder on the question are we truly a sovereign state?

I am a proud Zimbabwean, I love my country and its people make no mistake but I do not have blind love. I question aspects and policies in my nation which I think we as the people need to do,  question the people we entrust with power.

Photo accredited to https://www.facebook.com/IAmProudToBeAZimbabwean

If independence and sovereignty mean that the interests of all Zimbabwean are considered then we have failed miserably in that regard. Gone are the days when our education system was one of the best in Africa, now we all scrounge to put our children in private schools and universities in other countries. We used to be the bread basket of Africa now we import maize from our neighbours. We used to value Ubuntu and humanity but now we rank high in corruption, political intolerance and the number of lives lost due to political violence is appalling.

There are too many children on the streets, not in school and in marginalised communities and nothing is being done. There are too many women abused and struggling with no recourse to justice, perpetrators buying their ‘freedom’. There are too many men in our society breaking their backs everyday but are not able to buy basic food for their families. Political party membership cards are a ‘get out of jail free card’! Yet our leaders stay in lavish houses, drive fancy cars in deplorable roads (I must add), take so many trips to places I have never heard of. Is this what the best interests of the people mean? Is this is the Zimbabwe we want?

Maybe if more of our leaders were like the pope who refuses to live in a lavish mansion perhaps we could see more ubuntu in our nation, less corruption and justice for all. But, that is still a dream for now.

So for me Zimbabwe at 33 means we don’t have white minority rule but we still have elements of that era. We still have a repressive regime, persecution of human rights defenders, people are still victimised for exercising their ‘freedoms’. I was not there before 1980 but I don’t think this is what the fighters envisioned 33 years later!

Then again this is just my opinion.

Ms  Kache

Protect our children

Sexual violence in conflict has been on the international agenda for over a decade now but it is still prevalent where ever there is war or political strife. Reports on sexual violence have focused mainly on women, though men and children suffer as much.  There are misconceptions’ regarding what is and what is not sexual violence, but the following clarify these misconception:

Sexual violence -

1. It is not just women who suffer sexual violence, it is also children

2. It is not just girls who suffer sexual violence, it is also boys

3. It is not just Africa that has sexual violence, it is a global problem

4. It is not just a ‘weapon of war’, it is pervasive in all settings

These four points are from a recently released report on sexual violence against children; http://cdn.warchild.org.uk/sites/default/files/An-Unwanted-Truth-April-2013.pdf .

caption acrredited http://www.zimbabwean.co.uk

The report makes for interesting reading because it raises issues that RAU will be working on in the near future, violence against children, whose voices are seldom heard.  This report is also in line with the perceptions of sexual violence report RAU is finalizing which also asks question about sexual violence against children, particularly teenage boys and girls.

Sexual violence is not only a problem for women to be addressed only by women; it can affect any person of any race and living in any country.

The sexual violator in you

As a result of the many reports on violence against women both in the home and in public which showed that sexual violence was on the increase, RAU conducted a preliminary study in 2012 on Zimbabwe’s perceptions of sexual violence. This report will be published at the end of this week.   Causes of violence against women in Zimbabwe include; economic dependency of women on men. This was exacerbated by the political and economic crisis of 2007/8 which we are yet to recover from. The inability of the policy framework to effectively protect women and girls, coupled with a  poor reporting systems for victims, the subjugation of women; and social degeneration associated with the breakdown in social values and cultural, religious or ideological permissiveness and bias that condones gender-based violence also emerged as factors that increase women’s susceptibility to rape.

As a precursor to the findings in that report, it is important to lay out our understanding of sexual violence as there seems to be a misunderstanding of what it entails.

Sexual violence is:

 Any

1. i.                    sexual act
2. ii.                   attempt to obtain a sexual act
3. iii.                unwanted sexual comments or action
4. iv.                  non-contact sexual act (detailed below)

committed against a person’s sexuality by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any place, be it the home, the streets, the work place, entertainment venues, public transport or any other place.

A sex act is;

1. i.                     contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus involving penetration, however slight
2. ii.                  contact between the mouth and penis, vulva, or anus
3. iii.                 or penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.

An attempted (but not completed) sex act is;

1. i.                    Unwanted sexual action which can be intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse.

Non-contact sexual abuse does not include physical contact of a sexual nature between the perpetrator and the victim. It includes acts such as voyeurism; intentional exposure of an individual to exhibitionism; unwanted exposure to pornography; verbal or behavioral sexual harassment; threats of sexual violence to accomplish some other end; or taking nude photographs of a sexual nature of another person without his or her consent or knowledge, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse.

These definitions cover both males and females; where either can be a perpetrator or a victim but in most cases the victims are women, so the focus of this blog is on them. It is not surprising to learn that every woman will experience some form of sexual violence at least once in their lifetime especially taking into account unwanted sexual comments and non-sexual contact actions.

One of the reasons sexual violence is highly unreported is because of the myth that a woman who is dressed in a particular way or is seen alone in a particular place at a certain time is inviting sexual advances and should therefore be prepared for the consequences.  According to the report that RAU has produced which shall be published in the following days, this myth is perpetuated more by women than by men; possibly because they have been socialized to believe it as truth for such a long time.

There needs to be greater understanding that sexual violence does not only mean rape and indecent assault, not only actions but words and non-sexual actions fall under this definition. Instead of targeting men’s behavior as the real reason behind rape, women are being blamed for becoming victims and told to change the way they dress when they go to certain areas and not be in these ‘dangerous’ areas especially after dark.  Let us stop blaming the victims and all play a part in ending sexual violence by first understanding what it is and how we are contributing to its perpetuation.