THE NGO NETWORK ALLIANCE PROJECT - an online community for Zimbabwean activists  
 View archive by sector


Back to Index

Important legislative business awaits Parliament on resumption of sitting
Southern African Parliamentary Support Trust
March 05, 2012

There are reports that the principals have agreed to do away with the proposed polling station based voters’ roll in the Bill. While this is a welcome development, we await to see what other proposed amendments by the committee will be taken on board by the Executive. The Bill still needs to be adjusted in order to have a good enabling law for elections. Some of the areas of concern include restrictions on funding for voter education by civic groups, executive dominance on the Observer Accreditation Committee, failure to give ZEC sole and exclusive responsibility for the registration of voters and the maintenance of the voters roll, absence of provisions to ensure the courts expedite dispute resolution, lack of specific punitive sanctions against media firms that do not provide fair media coverage to all political parties and barring of Diaspora voting.

The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Bill is now generally a good piece of legislation that should easily pass in Parliament after the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs agreed to accommodate some of the reservations from the Justice Portfolio Committee, Parliamentary Legal Committee, civic society and interest groups. In an unprecedented show of unity, the House of Assembly last year refused to fast-track the Bill despite attempts by political parties represented in Parliament to whip their members into line.

The main recommendations arising from the work of the Justice Portfolio Committee and Parliamentary Legal Committee included widening the scope of human rights violations to cover all issues covered by international human rights instruments to which Zimbabwe is a party; non-interference by Ministers in the appointment and disciplining of Commission staff members; submission of Commission reports directly to Parliament and not via the Minister of Justice; granting the Commission retrospective mandate in its investigations and not begin from 13th February 2009; and revisiting clause which gives the Minister of Justice power to refuse information to the Commission on the basis of such information being prejudicial to “state interests”. The committee recommended that such “state interests” should be clearly defined or the provision removed totally as it was open to abuse.

From these recommendations, Minister Chinamasa agreed to revisit the definition of human rights violation to include those violations relating to an international human rights instrument even if the law domesticating such instrument did not expressly confer jurisdiction on the Commission. The import of the previous definition was that what amounted to a human rights violation would not be the subject matter of the Commission’s work simply on account of the fact that the legal instrument concerned was silent that the Commission can investigate that matter.
The other issue that Minister Chinamasa agreed to address relates to visitors to Zimbabwe. The Bill defined “visitor” in a very restrictive manner such that certain categories of persons who would be in Zimbabwe, could have their rights violated without legal redress. The Commission would equally be constrained to investigate their matters on account of the restrictive definition. With the proposed amendment, foreigners can now make a complaint to the Commission if their rights are violated while in Zimbabwe.

Minister Chinamasa proposed to amend clause 6, which originally provided for the appointment of the Executive Secretary to the Commission in consultation with the ministers responsible for Justice and of Finance. This was viewed as an improper and unnecessary intrusion into the independence of the Commission by the Executive. It is proposed to amend this clause by simply describing the qualifications of the Executive Secretary. This therefore leaves the Commission to determine its staffing issues without external interference.

A significant climb down is on Clause 12 which empowered the Minister of Justice to bar the disclosure of certain evidence either by the Commission or by the complainant in the “public interest”. This clause gave the Minister too much power and an unnecessary intrusion into the operational independence of the Commission. The proposed amendment is for such evidence which is in the “public interest” to be received in camera.

Proposals not taken on board by the Minister relate to the removal of commissioners, presentation of reports, mobilizing of funds and the retrospective mandate of the Commission in its investigations. We wait to see what other changes will be made during the committee stage when the Bill is considered clause by clause.

The other pieces of legislation related to the electoral process that Parliament should tackle include the private member bill to amend the Urban Councils Act which has since been gazetted, the private member bill to amend the Public Order and Security Act, which is currently stuck in the Senate and a private member bill to amend Section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. Of course there will be the important Constitutional Bill to be debated and approved by Parliament.

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