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.

 

 

Do NGOs and Donors undermine the State?

The Afrobarometer always provides highly interesting perspectives on what African citizens (as opposed to their governments) believe. Over the past decade the Afrobarometer has demonstrated the sophistication of African citizens’ understanding of politics, governance, and democracy. The findings are often surprising.

For example, recent analyses have shown the resurgence of popular support for traditional leadership, mainly because these folk provide a buffer for failing governments[1], or that youth, right across Africa, has diminishing faith in the power of elections to bring about democracy. The latter is clearly important in the light of the North African revolutions, but recent research by Resnick and Casale suggests that, whilst African youths tend to vote less and have lower levels of partisanship, they are not more likely to protest than older citizens[2].

These are interesting asides however, and we want to focus on a problem common in many African countries, the frequently fraught relations between states, donors, and civil society, especially NGOs. This is particularly interesting for Zimbabwe where there are continual statements from senior government Ministers that assert that these bodies work in concert to effect “regime change” at the worst and undermine the authority of the state at the least[3].

A very recent Afrobarometer report examined the views of African citizens about the role that donors and NGOs play in the political lives of their countries. As the Afrobarometer report pointed out, in admittedly a complex statistical analysis[4]:

Findings suggest that across a wide range of African countries, including fragile states like Liberia and stronger states like Botswana and South Africa, donors and non-state actors are strengthening, rather than undermining, citizens’ legitimating beliefs, as measured by their willingness to defer to the tax department, the police and the courts. Citizens who believe that donors and non-state actors, including domestic and international NGOs and international businesses, are doing a lot to help their country, rather than a little, are more likely to be willing to defer to the tax department. People who perceive that donors and non-state actors exert too little, rather than too much, influence over their government, are less likely to be willing to defer to the tax department, police, and courts. The opposite is true for those who perceive that donors and non-state actors exert too much influence, rather that too little influence, over their government.

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe was not included in the 19 countries from which the data was derived, but the sample of countries was sufficiently large[5] as was the number of citizens included (26,513). So this is a fair test of what African citizens think about donors and NGOs. And the findings certainly rubbish the claims by so many African governments that these bodies have a malevolent influence over their citizens.

African citizens, rather than distrusting donors and NGOs, see these bodies, where they are very present and active in a country, as strongly complimenting the work of their governments, and, very surprisingly, results in citizens claiming that this would make them more likely to pay tax, and more willing to defer to the authority of the police and the courts. Overall, this suggests a win-win situation for states and citizens: good states will attract donors, encourage non-state actors, and be rewarded with good citizens. Bad states repel donors, suppress non-state actors, and end up with unresponsive citizens.

It is also worth pointing out that it remains surprising at the continental level that donors continue to engage with so much faith in Africa, but this is not necessarily the case at the individual country level, where there may be excellent synergies between state, donors, and NGOs. Donor countries and donors continue to provide financial support to Africa in spite of the very discouraging picture. As a 2012 report from the Political Economy Research Institute points out in respect of capital flight from Sub-Saharan Africa[6]:

A key constraint to SSA’s growth and development is the shortage of financing. Indeed SSA faces large and growing financing gaps, hindering public investment and social service delivery. At the same time, the sub-region is a source of large-scale capital flight, which escalated during last decade even as the region experienced growth acceleration. The group of 33 SSA countries covered by this report has lost a total of $814 billion dollars (constant 2010 US$) from 1970 to 2010. This exceeds the amount of official development aid ($659 billion) and foreign direct investment ($306 billion) received by these countries. Oil-rich countries account for 72 percent of the total capital flight from the sub-region ($591 billion). The escalation of capital flight over the last decade coincided with the steady increase in oil prices prior to the global economic crisis.

 

Assuming that flight capital has earned (or could have earned) the modest interest rate measured by the short-term United States Treasury Bill rate, the corresponding accumulated stock of capital flight from the 33 countries stands at $1.06 trillion in 2010. This far exceeds the external liabilities of this group of countries of $189 billion (in 2010), making the region a “net creditor” to the rest of the world. The stereotypical view that SSA is severely indebted and heavily aid-dependent is not fully consistent with the facts.

 

And the general trend has been getting worse over the past four decades: net losses in the early 1970s were about US$28 billion, but by 2005-2010 they were estimated at US$202 billion. It is not the purview of this short opinion piece to examine the reasons for all this capital flight, but it does seem that the knee-jerk statements by African (and increasingly Zimbabwean leaders) to blame the West for its (and our) problems is not very honest. Some honest examination of who is sending out all that money might go some way to solving some of Africa’s economic problems, and could even pay off all of Sub-Saharan Africa’s debts.

There are also the knee-jerk attacks on the motives of the non-state actors. This is the really sorry story, because non-state actor is a term that covers virtually everyone that is not a government or a donor: NGOs, CBOs, associations like churches and sports clubs, international NGOs like Oxfam and Save the Children, and so on. African citizens say that the more of these that exist and are working hard for them, the more likely the nation and key institutions are one they trust. And, of course, they have an interest in regime change: any government that the non-state actor sector sees is not serving the interests of the people will be challenged.

But it depends on what is meant by regime change. It can range from wanting a new political party to govern (and only by election, not coup or violence) through to wanting a particular change in policy direction. Regime change straddles wanting a new government through to trying to influence a regime to change its policies, and this latter is where the vast number of NGOs put their energies. And since NGOs and CBOs in Africa are mostly filling the gaps where government cannot deliver, it is the reason why African citizens have trust in them. It also turns out that this is the core political activity in any nation, and why civil society (and its organisations) are at the heart of the political life of the citizenry.

---

[1] Baldwin, K (2011), When politicians cede control of resources: Land, Chiefs and coalition- building in Africa. Working Paper No. 130. AFROBAROMETER.

[2] Resnick, D., & Casale, D (2013), The Political Participation of Africa’s Youth: Turnout, Partisanship, and Protest. Working Paper No. 136. AFROBAROMETER.

[3] Most recently these sentiments were repeated by Minister Chinamasa in the statement following the meeting between the various Zimbabwean political parties and the British government. See COMMUNIQUE ISSUED BY HONOURABLE PATRICK CHINAMASA, Deputy Secretary for Legal Affairs of ZANU PF And The Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs At the Conclusion of the Meeting of Representatives of the Inclusive Government of Zimbabwe and the Friends of Zimbabwe (FoZ) held in London, QEII Conference Centre from 25 to 26 March 2013.

[4] Sacks, A (2013), Can Donors and Non-state Actors undermine Citizens’ Legitimating Beliefs? Working Paper No.140. AFROBAROMETER.

[5] The counties were Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.

[6] Boyce, J. K., & Ndikumana, L (2012), Capital Flight from Sub-Saharan African Countries: Updated Estimates, 1970 – 2010, October 2012. Political Economy Research Institute. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Free and Fair Elections?

Since 2010, RAU has been pointing out that the most important matter to be resolved ahead of any future elections is the reform of national institutions. This position has been repeatedly supported by SAPES and the Zimbabwe Liberators Platform. SADC, both through the Troika and the Summit, has also insisted on the deep message beneath the GPA: constitution AND reforms, then elections. Most recently, President Jacob Zuma himself has pointed out the need for urgent action ahead. Speaking at the recent meeting in Pretoria of the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence, and Security, Zuma made the following points:

• “Security sector realignment cannot be postponed any longer”;
• “In this regard Jomic needs to be activated as a matter of priority”;
  “The facilitation team supplemented by the representatives of Tanzania and Zambia must be enabled to participate actively in Jomic”;
• “Namibia as a member and incoming chair of troika should now be included” ;
• “Without the above two points it will be difficult to ensure that there is no intimidation and that violence is not allowed to escalate, if and when it occurs.”

So, when the President and the Minister of Justice are quoted as saying that elections will be held by 29^th June, and in the shenanigans around the continued detention of Beatrice Mtetwa and the 4 MDC officials and repeated harassment of NGOs, the total absence of reforms is now critical. The kinds of reforms now needed must be realistic and effective, for there is no longer time for the kind of wishful thinking that has characterized most calls for reform by Zimbabwean political parties and civil society bodies.

As we pointed out recently and several times previously, there are four key areas of reform that can change the electoral playing field[1]:

Firstly, the security sector needs oversight, what some have termed Security Sector Governance as opposed to Security Sector Reform. The latter is a decade-long process, while the former merely requires strong civilian oversight of the uniformed services and the intelligence agencies. This achieved in two ways: appointments of the senior officials through full consensus by all political parties, and a wholly civilian oversight body – in Zimbabwe’s case, agreement between the President and the Prime Minister of the appointments to the army, the police, the prisons, and the intelligence service, the disbanding of JOC, and a wholly civilian National Security Council.

Secondly, ensure that all state institutions adhere completely to their enabling legislation. The police are not allowed to be members of political parties or participate in political activities, and shall carry out their duties in a wholly non-partisan manner. Traditional leaders – chiefs, headmen, and village heads – are not allowed to be politically partisan, and must report all crimes in their areas of jurisdiction, without exception, to the police.

Thirdly, the Office of the Attorney-General (and the Attorney-General) must be completely non-partisan. The Attorney-General should be appointed with the agreement of both the President and the Prime Minister.

Fourthly, the state media – television, radio, and the press – shall be regulated by an independent body for instances of bias and the propagation of hate speech. Reform of the state media will a lengthy process, and, thus, in the short term all that is feasible is that there is an effective stop to all political bias and hate speech.

Add to this President Zuma’s latest comment that SADC observers need to be deployed well in advance of the election – now actually if the statements by the President and the Minister of Justice are to be taken seriously.

All of this will be difficult to achieve, but not impossible, but the big question is what to do if there is no credible attempt at reform. There can be only one position, that responsible political parties should not dignify flawed elections by participation. Actually, this should be their position right now. Whatever the constitution says, either the old or the new, adherence to minimal legalism will not solve the Zimbabwe crisis or bring legitimacy to the state if elections are a farce, and elections are farcical if citizens cannot speak, assemble, associate, and vote in complete freedom.

South Africa and SADC seem to see this quite clearly, but do Zimbabwean political parties. So, no reforms, no elections must be the call by all!

written by

Tony Reeler

---

[1] RAU (2012), On Restoring National Institutions and Elections. The Governance Programme. March 2012. HARARE: RESEARCH & ADVOCACY UNIT; Reeler, A. P (2013), Of Camels, Constitutions, and Elections. February 2013. HARARE: RESEARCH & ADVOCACY UNIT.

The story of Beatrice Mtetwa: A Red Herring ?

Right in the middle of a historical exercise, the holding of a Constitutional Referendum- something monumental had to happen. Merely a few hours after voting had ended, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) -in its unfathomable and incomprehensible wisdom-decided to arrest Beatrice Mtetwa. Previously I wrote about Beatrice in my Feminist Chronicles, having identified her as one of the most influential women in Zimbabwe, whose bright intellect and sharp and keen sense of reasoning was above many.

Given her history as a strong advocate for the weak, the defenseless and the vulnerable and also given her strong will to take on cases that many cowered away from, it is no wonder that she made it to the top of the regime’s WANTED list; a regime that is scared witless of its own population yet so boastful of its popularity.

The facts of the case…

Beatrice was arrested on the morning of Sunday the 17^th of March 2013 in the line of duty, attending to her client Thabani Mpofu. Thabani’s home was being searched (read raided) by the police as they searched for what we have popularly come to know as “subversive material.” But who knows what that subversive material is; it could be anything from radios to smart phones to information packs, but a little bird whispered in my ear that Thabani was in the middle of putting together a dossier with evidence of corruption of some political big wigs, a job that the police believe is strictly theirs to do, hence the charges of impersonation leveled against him.

What is the law regarding search warrants

The Public Order and Security Act in Section 39 provides that the arrest or search of any person or premises shall be carried out in line with the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in Section 49 as read with Section 50 demands that the police may only search premises and seize articles suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the commission of an offence with a valid warrant of search issued by a magistrate or judge. Section 50 (4) of the Criminal procedure and Evidence Act states that a person whose rights are affected by the search can demand to see the warrant, AFTER THE POLICE HAVE EXECUTED THE WARRANT, and the police are obligated to produce such a warrant. As the legal representative of the accused, Beatrice had every right to demand to see the search warrant, but the question is did she demand to see the warrant before or after the police were done with their job?

Presumably, the answer is no and we can assume that she demanded to see the warrant during the search before the police were through with their search which is why the police then accused her of obstructing the course of justice. But given that, half the time, the police in Zimbabwe carry out arbitrary searches and seizure and arrests, any lawyer of character would do under the given circumstances what Beatrice did.  This probably explains why Justice Hungwe, a judge in the High Court of Zimbabwe ordered her release.

However there remains no valid explanation as to why Beatrice remains in police custody despite the order for her immediate release. There is also no explanation as to why she has been moved from police station to police station since then in the typical fashion that the police have adopted to deny an individual under interrogation access to their legal counsel and/or relatives. This same tactic was employed against Jestina Mukoko and has been observed in many trends where political activists and human rights defenders have been arrested.

Is this arrest an end in itself or a means to an end?

Theory One…

A week ago IDASA launched the Democracy Index for Zimbabwe, an analysis of the state of democracy in Zimbabwe. In the Chapter on Political Freedoms and Democracy that I wrote, one of the questions informing the analysis was “How free are all people from intimidation and fear, physical violation against their person, arbitrary arrest and detention?”  In my response, I explained that despite Constitutional guarantees for such freedom, the state continues to use its security apparatus to silence dissenting voices, targeting the few vocal and visible individuals to serve as an example and unleash a silent indirect threat to the rest of the faint and weak-hearted. So I would not be surprised if Beatrice’s arrest is just but another example of that.

Theory Two…

When the process of writing a new constitution began, it ignited hope in many Zimbabweans that a new dispensation in which the rule of law would be restored was on its way.  However during the whole era of the inclusive government that particular hope has been dashed and continues to be dashed. Could it be doubted that the arrest of Beatrice is a clear message to the few hopefuls that NOTHING has changed and won’t change. This form of intimidation will continue to be the order of the day even with a new constitution with a broader Bill of Rights.

Theory Three

The arrest of Beatrice Mtetwa could be a red herring. Don’t get me wrong, that is not to trivialise the enormity of what is being done here or what it means for women human rights defenders’ safety and security. But maybe those who instigated this arrest are drawing attention away from the Referendum, with the strange and ironic  contradiction of voter apathy in city centres where people had access to the draft, to the press, to political commentary online about the contents of the constitution as compared to the high (if I may abuse the word -voluminous) turnout in the areas with citizens who had the least access to the media in the form of newspapers, radio and televisions. Were they saying, “YES we don’t know what’s in the constitution but we will vote for it anyway” or  were they forced to say “Yes” or were they genuinely saying “YES we want the draft to be the new Constitution because we agree with its contents”? There is no prize for guessing which it is likely to be! But also maybe Beatrice’s arrest is targeted at drawing the world’s attention away from how a flawed process resulted in the flawed adoption of a flawed document courtesy of political parties’ turnabout from fighting for independence, freedom and democracy to POWER.

Maybe, these are just what they are-theories -but I shall not wait for history to condemn my silence where I could have spoken-and so I have spoken, standing in solidarity with Beatrice and calling for her release- as any law abiding Zimbabwean would.

Rumbidzai Dube 19 March 2013