Back to Index

Judicial independence compromised - lawyers
Legalbrief Africa
Extracted from Issue 163
January 16, 2006

http://www.legalbrief.co.za/article.php?story=20060116150607880

A row has erupted in the Zimbabwe legal profession over the independence of judges and magistrates, writes E-Brief News.

The first salvo was fired by Judge President Paddington Garwe, who, responding to insinuations in the legal fraternity, told the 2006 opening of Zimbabwe's Legal Year that that the Bench was independent and not subservient to President Robert Mugabe and his ruling Zanu-PF party, reports The Herald. Law firms that have been critical of the government's human rights record also came under fire. High Court Judge Maphios Cheda said it was surprising to see law firms that never supported the liberation of Zimbabwe now in the forefront of demonising the country for violating human rights. 'It is some of these firms who are today in the forefront in singing loudly about human rights violations which they ignored during the war,' Justice Cheda said. 'Instead, some of their partners and professional assistants chose to fight against blacks while they were aware they could have refused to do so on the basis of being conscientious objectors.'
Full report in The Herald

Responding to Garwe, lawyers and activists say some of Zimbabwe's judges and magistrates were being compromised by accepting the government's political largesse. ZimOnline quotes Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) executive director Arnold Tsunga as saying the consensus among the legal fraternity in the country is that the judiciary was compromised both at the personal level of individual judges and at the institutional level. Tsunga said judges had compromised themselves by accepting land controversially seized from whites. Some of Zimbabwe's judges, such as Justices Ben Hlatshwayo and Chinembiri Bhunu, allegedly personally invaded farms while several other judicial officers were also allocated land by Mugabe's Government.
Full ZimOnline report

Human rights lawyers also hit back at Cheda's criticism of lawyers involved in human rights litigation. The Zimbabwe Independent reports the lawyers say the judge's statements 'reinforce a growing perception of an arrogant judiciary which believes that its public threats will dissuade members of the legal profession from exposing human rights violations and pursuing redress for their clients'. ZLHR said Cheda's statements prove the hostility towards human rights defenders pursuing legitimate activities to improve the conditions of the vast majority of disadvantaged people in Zimbabwe by state organs and public officers.
Full report in The Zimbabwe Independent

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