Back to Index , Back to article index, Previous Page

Report of Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians Mission to Zimbabwe, 28 March - 2 April 2004
111th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and related meetings - Geneva, Sep 28 - Oct 01, 2004
Geneva - October 01, 2004
Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)
October 01, 2004

F. Concluding remarks
1. The delegation wishes first of all to recall that the mission concerned 28 members of the opposition MDC who were all arrested and detained for differing periods of time. Some of them were charged and taken to court; some were reportedly ill-treated in detention; some were attacked personally by non-State agents, or their families or property were attacked. The IPU Governing Council and the Committee feared therefore that this denoted a pattern of systematic harassment of the political opposition.

2. The delegation notes that in the June 2000 elections the MDC gained 57 seats of the 120 elected seats, five less than ZANU-PF. At a time when all power was in the hands of ZANU-PF, almost half the electorate had thus voted for the MDC candidates and entrusted the elected MPs with their representation in Parliament. No complaint for fraud has been lodged against the MDC. It goes without saying that in a democracy the will of the electors must be respected just as that of their elected representatives must be. The delegation is therefore deeply disturbed to note that statements made to it by the government authorities and police suggest that this is not the case inasmuch as there is a general tendency to demonise the political opposition.

3. The delegation notes that at no time has a complaint been lodged as to any unlawful funding of the MDC, nor have judicial or other procedures been instituted against the Party on such grounds. Raising this question now can therefore only be understood as an attempt to discredit the MDC.

4. The government authorities and the police representatives have repeatedly insisted that the MDC has resorted to violence, and have portrayed the Party as an organisation aiming to overthrow the Government by violent means. The delegation wishes to make the following observations on this point:

4.1. According to the authorities, Zimbabwe has a history of violent political struggle. Indeed, violent speeches and action appeared to the delegation to be constant features of the country's political life. The delegation does not consider the statements of Mr. Tsvangirai and Mr. Mhashu which it was shown as evidence of MDC violence to be more extreme than statements of the authorities and ZANU-PF leaders as quoted in the official media.

4.2. The official crime register referred to under D.3.2. suggests that the MDC does not resort to greater violence than the majority party. The contrary would appear to be the case. The register shows that a significantly lower number of the cases of violence are attributed to the MDC (417 MDC cases compared to 784 ZANU-PF cases for the three periods referred to in the register).

4.3. In order to demonstrate the violent nature of the MDC and its elected MPs, the Commissioner of Police and other authorities drew attention to the treason charges brought against the MDC party leadership, and the Limukani Luphala and Cain Nkala murder case. As the delegation noted during its mission, this attitude is echoed in the press. However, in the treason case, Prof. Welshman Ncube and Mr. Renson Gansela were acquitted back in August 2003. In the case of Mr. Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, the Judge had concluded on 2 March 2004, before the visit, that the prosecution evidence against him and others was entirely fabricated. The prosecution thus no longer has a case against him. Quoting these cases as evidence of violence on the part of MDC MPs can therefore only be seen as disregarding court rulings in an attempt to discredit the political opposition.

5. While there is therefore no evidence to indicate that MDC leaders and members resort to greater violence than those of ZANU-PF, the crime register clearly demonstrates that the police were much more likely to arrest MDC supporters: whereas for the three periods referred to in the crime register a significantly lower number of the cases of violence are attributed to the MDC (417 MDC cases compared to 784 ZANU-PF cases), the police arrested the same number of MDC supporters and leaders as ZANU-PF ones, namely 645. The delegation finds this all the more disturbing when considering that, as regards the MPs concerned, the legal foundation of such arrests seems to be lacking, as suggested by the high number of cases which are dropped. In the 38 cases against the MPs concerned as referred to in the police memorandum of 8 March 2004, only four sentences/fines were given . It is therefore difficult not to interpret this as special treatment by the police of MDC leaders and supporters whom they seem to consider as potential criminals.

6. In the view of the delegation, this attitude is particularly dangerous given the sweeping powers granted to the police under the POSA. As the many cases of withdrawal of charges against the MPs concerned either before plea or for lack of evidence demonstrate, the police - be it on instruction or be it due to an overzealous attitude as suggested by the Government Chief Whip - tend to arrest MDC MPs in circumstances in which it is difficult to identify the grounds for the arrest and even the basis for reasonable suspicion justifying arrest. Moreover, the delegation notes that the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Commissioner of Police both affirmed that under the POSA meetings need only be notified and require no permission, the police being entitled to take certain measures for technical reasons only. The delegation therefore notes with concern that police treatment of notifications amounts in practice to authorising or prohibiting meetings, for which they can even set conditions as they see fit (for example banning criticism of President Mugabe). In so doing, they not only infringe the legal provisions in force but also the right of the MPs concerned to freedom of assembly and of speech.

7. MDC MPs are therefore at continuous risk of arbitrary arrest and detention, which may last as long as one month, as in the case of Mr. Moses Mzila Ndlovu. If released on remand or on bail, MDC MPs are sometimes subjected to heavy constraints, which are not only financial, but entail, often for long periods, weekly or more frequent travel, sometimes over long distances, to comply with reporting requirements to police. In most of the cases, these constraints are imposed on the basis of ill-founded charges. MDC MPs are also continuously subject to arbitrary prohibition of meetings, including "report back" meetings with their electors. This not only violates their individual rights and liberties but greatly hampers, and sometimes wholly prevents them from discharging the mandate entrusted to them by their electors, and deprives their electors of their right to be represented. The situation thus created could deter electors from voting for the MDC as the Party's MPs would appear to be unable to properly represent the interests of their constituents.

8. The delegation is appalled at the high number of beatings, other ill-treatment and torture reportedly inflicted on the MPs concerned by State agents, be it the police or other law enforcing agents. The Acting Attorney General noted that such illegal practices are increasingly denounced in court. The delegation considers that the authorities are under a pressing duty to investigate any such denunciations, especially when supported by medical evidence, to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. The delegation notes that nobody denies that more than one year ago, Mr. Sikhala was tortured in detention. The delegation finds it extremely disturbing that the investigations, which the authorities said had been instituted, have yielded no result to date. A highly professional police corps such as the Z.R.P. might have been expected to make every effort to identify and bring to justice as a matter of urgency the officers responsible for such crimes. The delegation acknowledges that in some cases of assaults against the MPs concerned, investigations were instituted and the culprits brought to justice.

9. The delegation is concerned at the many reported instances in which the necessary medical care was not given to detainees. As to Mr. Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, it can only note that he has lost the sight of one eye as a consequence of his detention in Khami prison.

10. The Commissioner of Police claimed that Mr. Coltart deliberately distorted the truth in stating that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act) Regulations, 2004, Statutory Instrument 37 of 2004 could be used to detain MDC members and its MPs for up to a month without legal process and that they applied to a wide range of offences under the POSA. However, the delegation, which obtained the text of the relevant Regulations after its mission, notes that the Regulations do indeed authorise police to detain persons for a 28-day period on charges under the POSA, such as "subverting a constitutional government" (see D.I.5.). It fails to understand how the relevant provisions (Section 2 read together with paragraph 10 of the Third Schedule to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act) could be read to imply that Mr. Coltart was distorting the truth.

11. The authorities insisted that Zimbabwe under its present Government was a law abiding country, respecting the rule of law. The delegation notes that the rule of law implies inter alia respect for the courts and the judgments they dispense. It is therefore appalled that in the case of Mr. Bennett, court orders have been consistently ignored by the authorities, thereby forcing Mr. Bennett and his family to leave his farm. It is appalled at the violence perpetrated against workers on the farm, all of them Zimbabwean citizens, as is Mr. Bennett himself.

12. The delegation wishes to recall that Zimbabwe is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and thus bound by its provisions, whether they have been incorporated into national law or not. It recalls in this respect more particularly the observations and recommendations made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its Concluding Observations on the initial report of Zimbabwe (CCPR/C/79/Add.89) of 6 April 1998. The delegation is concerned that some of the laws and regulations enacted since, in particular the POSA and Statutory Instrument 37 of 2004, may run counter to those recommendations.

13. Parliament was described by most of the delegation's interlocutors as a haven for the much called-for tolerance. Indeed, the delegation was pleased to note that Parliament was a place where the majority and the opposition worked together in a manner consonant with traditional parliamentary practices. However, it is troubled by the recent and apparently questionable use of contempt of the House proceedings against two MDC MPs, and it hopes that such proceedings will not be resorted to in order to prevent opposition MPs from freely exercising their right to freedom of expression, which is fundamental to any parliamentary democracy.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP