Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Condemnation of brutal Chiadzwa diamond arrests
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR)
May 20, 2008

Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) wishes to express its unreserved condemnation of the events unfolding in Manicaland's perennially troubled diamond mining Chiadzwa District. From the first week of May 2008, the Zimbabwe Republic Police and other state agencies have launched an ongoing campaign against perceived diamond miners ominously dubbed 'Operation Restore Order'.

Information at hand is that in April 2008 Magistrates and Prosecutors in Mutare were taken on an 'orientation or familiarisation tour' of the Chiadzwa diamond mining area by the police. Thereafter a special police task force, complimented by ferocious dogs, was assembled to deal with the 'Chiadzwa problem'. This special task force besieged the Chiadzwa area arresting over one thousand (1,000) suspects, including women and children. In the process, it is alleged some individuals were bitten by the dogs and assaulted by police officers, while others sustained injuries from falling whilst attempting to flee from the unleashed dogs.

The arrests were indiscriminate, with suspects complaining to lawyers that they had been arrested from the main road, their homes, the grazing fields, shopping centres and homesteads in and around the Chiadzwa area. Some of the accused persons have also alleged that their homes were forcefully opened and their money, foodstuff and groceries confiscated without lawful cause and without being recorded.

Accused persons were taken to various police holding cells where they were kept in crowded and filthy conditions for as long as 4 to 5 days before initial court appearance. The holding cells' toilets, bathing facilities and food provisions ranged from inadequate to non-existent. Among the detainees were juveniles as young as 12 and 13 years of age, and fairly elderly persons in their 60s.

When the individuals appeared in court, several had visible injuries and deep dog bites. No medical attention had been availed to them for rabies or tetanus. A number had to be assisted to enter of leave the court. It is estimated that at least 25 in every 100 prisoners were injured in one way or the other and it is alleged that the most severe injuries arose from abuse and dog bites which occurred when the individuals were already in custody.

In contravention of the law, all those interviewed by the police never had warned and cautioned statements recorded from them before their initial court appearance and were not allowed access to lawyers. They eventually appeared in court well after the legal 48-hour time frame.

The affected persons appeared in court (before Magistrates and Prosecutors who had been taken on the 'orientation or familiarisation tour') in groups of seventy (70) or eighty (80), with most co-accused persons having no evidentiary link to one other. There was no individual evaluation of their cases by the prosecution. They were unrepresented and uninformed about their constitutional rights. The accused persons had no opportunity to place their complaints before the court. Mass remand proceedings took place. Bail was routinely denied. In the few cases where bail was granted the prosecution opted to appeal in terms of s121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, thus ensuring that the accused persons remained in custody pending appeal.

One particular magistrate refused to admit anyone to bail and has refused all applications for changes of plea made after lawyers were alerted to the violations of accused persons' rights and attended to represent them. This magistrate is alleged to have "descended from the bench", becoming police officer, prosecutor and magistrate in one, cross-examining accused persons, trying to change their plea, or setting out their defences. The magistrate remanded juveniles and injured accused persons including women and old men in custody and refused to entertain any complaints or take judicial notice of the serious injuries which had been brought to the court's attention.

Attending lawyers have reported chaos in the record keeping, the movement of accused persons, their identities, and the identification of appropriate courts where proceedings should take place. There is no recording equipment to ensure accurate recording of trial proceedings. Lawyers are having difficulties in tracing their clients and the relatives of the accused persons.

The prison service in Mutare has been overwhelmed. Mutare Remand Prison is alleged to now be holding an estimated 1,100 prisoners instead of its full capacity of 300. The prison authorities have only one bus to ferry accused persons to court with the result that some only make it to court as late as 4pm and, in some instances, others never make it into a court but are remanded in their absence to some other date and court.

ZLHR expresses its grave concern at such reports of serious violations of the constitutional rights of accused persons. The Constitution of Zimbabwe clearly sets out provisions to ensure the presumption of innocence is safeguarded and the accused person is made aware of her/his rights, has access to a lawyer of her/his choice, is able to secure medical treatment where necessary, adequate food and water, as well as be kept in conditions which do not amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment or treatment. Torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment is outlawed at national and international law, and for this reason, those individuals responsible for meting out brutality on defenseless individuals, whether or not they are alleged to have committed unspecified crimes, must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Police and prison officers are supposedly educated about these constitutional requirements, as well as their obligations in this regard, and cannot plead ignorance of the law. Their conduct in the current situation is a blatant violation of the Constitution which must be met with appropriate legal sanctions.

Likewise, law officers and judicial authorities must ensure that the rights of accused persons are upheld if there is not to be a complete breakdown of the rule of law. Officers of the court - be they judicial officers, prosecutors, or private lawyers - must ensure that they remain independent from the executive arm of government, and that there is not even the perception of collusion. Regrettably, this perception has arisen in this case, due to the "familiarization tour" with the police, and the subsequent conduct in dealing with the cases in court.

The wholesale objection to bail and invocation of section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in the mass fast track trials is becoming a disturbing phenomenon which is constitutionally unsound and can be considered a grave miscarriage of justice.

Finally, ZLHR notes the so-called 'resource curse' that has hitherto been associated with divides in international relations and deplores this campaign by state agencies which has shamefully dehumanized the people of the Chiadzwa communal lands. The failure of the state to ensure a just system of obtaining these valuable resources for the benefit of the nation and the Chiadzwa community- which should be the most basic duty expected of a government - is symptomatic of the political and economic environment throughout the country that is perpetuated merely to enable looting of the resources of the weak by the powerful and to institutionalise socio-economic disadvantages for the benefit of an unaccountable elite. There is urgent need to address these issues to ensure social and economic justice for all.

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