Back to Index

Judicial Independence or judicial excuses! ZLHR concerned at delays in the resolution of Court matters
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)
January 12, 2005

After the occasion of the opening of the 2005 Legal Year, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) would like to place it on record that it has been following the events in the Courts of the land with interest and makes the following observations.

1. Lawyers are generally unhappy that they experience inordinate and inexcusable delays in the setting down of cases. In some instances the function of the setting down and allocation of cases to judges has been taken away from the Registrar to the Judge President.
2. Lawyers have complained of inordinate delays in delivery of judgments especially in certain classes of cases involving human rights or those perceived to have high political stakes. For example such delays in delivery of judgments have been experienced in the case of Independent Journalists Association of Zimbabwe (IJAZ), Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ) publishers of the Daily News and Daily News on Sunday, the matter of Hon Roy Bennett inter alia.
3. Lawyers have complained of a high level of disobedience, defiance and disregard of court orders especially by the Executive in cases mainly involving perceived political opponents of the ruling party whether intra party or inter party. The cases that come to mind include that of Philip Chiyangwa, Fletcher Dulini Ncube, Roy Bennett (in at least 6 court orders), and the ANZ Cases. More disquieting has been the inability of the court to frown at such despicable conduct and protect its own integrity.
4. Lawyers have been shocked by the failure of the courts to clamp down on such uncouth practices as torture, which is completely banned under international human rights law. The cases of Philip Chiyangwa, Gabriel Shumba, and Job Sikhala easily come to mind.

Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that every individual shall the right to have his cause heard. This comprises of the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights, right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal and further to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. Good judges must show and practice independence, impartiality and competence. It must be noted that an additional quality of a judge as well as a good and effective justice delivery system is efficiency. It is beyond doubt that efficiency is a hallmark of any well functioning Judiciary. The fact that litigants’ representatives have not come forward with their cases is explained by the fact that the courts have actually developed a most unfortunate reputation of causing inordinate delays in handing judgments. ZLHR has called on numerous occasions on the Courts to hand down judgments in addition to the lawyers’ numerous correspondence to the Registrars for judgments but these have gone unanswered or have got the judgments long after they are turned brutum fulmen (empty orders).

The cases of the election petitions are matters that struck at the very foundations of representative democracy and constitutional supremacy as we know it. It was therefore imperative that the Courts should or ought to have determined these matters expeditiously and have been seen to be playing their role as one of the three equal and independent arms of the State.

ZLHR calls upon the swift determination of these and other cases currently before the courts if the courts are to retain their integrity.

Visit the ZLHR fact sheet

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