Spend this note like it’s going out of fashion

Sydney Morning Herald
By Rochelle Mutton in Johannesburg

THE problem with Zimbabwean money is that in the hyper-inflated economy, notes have become worth less than the paper they’re printed on.
To try to keep up with runaway inflation, Zimbabwe’s central bank has released a new $Z50,000 note.

Word on the street is to spend it quickly. As the Zimbabwe dollar has been notoriously prone to counterfeit, the new $Z50,000 note – technically a cheaply printed “bearer’s cheque” – expires at year’s end.

But a use-by-date is hardly necessary, with the Reserve Bank governor warning that inflation will soon nudge 800 per cent.

Upon issue, the new note carried the buying power of only a loaf of bread, a kilogram of mealie (the staple maize meal), or about three eggs – none of which are in guaranteed supply. In Zimbabwe, $Z50,000 converts to about 40 Australian cents at the official exchange rate.

Featuring a gaudy, Monopoly-like print of the Victoria Falls, this latest complement to the Zimbabwe currency is fast being associated with “a plunging precipice”, in a light-hearted email doing the local rounds.

The Opposition legal affairs spokesman, David Coltart, said Zimbabwe needs a $Z5 million note.

“The rate inflation is going, it will be in need of replacement before it has even been distributed to all the banks throughout the country,” he said. “The new note buys an absolute maximum of five litres of fuel, sold at old prices, but as from late last week it probably would only buy between two and three litres.”

Zimbabwe is in the throes of economic hemorrhaging, with unemployment at about 80 per cent, power failures, chronic fuel shortages and about 4.3 million people reliant on international food aid this year.

The International Monetary Fund, which has been holding talks in Harare this month, has called for improvements in governance, liberalisation of currency exchange rates, strengthening of property rights and reform of inefficient, corrupt and dept-ridden state enterprise and government bodies.

Since white-owned farms were seized in 2000 – devastating the economy – the IMF has suspended all loan programs to Zimbabwe.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

MDC faction seizes control of parliamentary party

New Zimbabwe

A faction of Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposed to leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, has taken control of the parliamentary party and moved swiftly to appoint a new shadow cabinet.

Paul Themba Nyathi, a spokesman for the faction led by Tsvangirai’s deputy, Gibson Sibanda, unveiled the new shadow cabinet in a statement issued Wednesday.

At least 22 MPs out of the 41 MDC legislators in parliament had swung behind Sibanda’s group, with at least one other MP, David Coltart, preferring to remain outside the factions as an arbiter.

The two factions have been fighting for control of the party, both insisting they are the official MDC — a fight that looks destined to be settled in the courts.

However, the seizure of the parliamentary majority by Sibanda’s group makes them the official opposition, at least in parliament, and entitles them to government funding under the Political Finances Act.

The MDC split irreconcilably over the senate elections last November, with Tsvangirai breaking rank with his party to declare that he would oppose participation in the elections.

His colleagues accused him of being a dictator, an accusation that he rejects.

Nyathi said: “MDC, having realised that parliament is the theatre of political activity, held its parliamentary caucus on Wednesday, after which some appointments were made.

“These appointments are a deliberate effort to reposition the party and to ensure that the contributions of party parliamentarians in the august house is accurately and properly articulated for the benefit of the nation.”

Kwekwe legislator, Blessing Chebundo, is the new party Chief Whip and will be deputised by Nomalanga Mzilikazi Khumalo, Member of Parliament for Mzingwane.

Glen Norah MP, Priscilla Misihairambwi Mushonga, is the new parliamentary spokesperson for the party.

Edward Mkhosi, the MP for Mangwe is the new shadow minister for Lands & Agriculture, with Harare North MP, Trudy Stevenson re-occupying the Local Government portfolio.

Moses Mzila-Ndlovu, MP for Bulilima is the new Foreign Affairs shadow minister, while Pumula-Luveve MP, Esaph Mdlongwa, takes over the Labour & Social Welfare portfolio.

Other appointments were, Blessing Chebundo (Health), Dvivarasekwa MP Edwin Mushoriwa (Economic Affairs), Lupane MP Njabuliso Mguni (Education & Culture), Pelandaba-Mpopoma MP Milton Gwetu (Industry and Commerce), Gweru Urban MP Timothy Mkhahlera (Home Affairs), Zengeza MP Goodrich Chambaira (Gender & Youth Development), Binga MP Joel Gabbuza (Mines), St Mary’s MP Job Sikhala (Defence & Security) and Nkayi MP Abednico Bhebhe as Transport & Communications shadow minister.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Motion: Report of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights in Zimbabwe

Extract from Hansard (edited)

MR COLTART: Madam Speaker, on the 5th of December last year the African Commission of Human and People’s Rights passed a resolution in Banjul,

I had asked that the Resolution be printed but due to problems with this Honorable House’s photocopying equipment – the Resolution could not be printed in time for debate this afternoon. So, I will read the entire Resolution so that it forms part of the proceedings and is a record of today’s proceedings. It reads as follows Madam Speaker:-

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights meeting at its 38th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia from 21 November to 5 December 2005;

Considering that Zimbabwe is a Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments;

Recalling the recommendations to the government of Zimbabwe contained in the African Commission Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe in June 2002;

Further recalling the recommendations to the government of Zimbabwe by the United Nations Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe contained in her Report published on 22 July 2005;

Deeply concerned by the continued undermining of the independence of the judiciary through defiance of court orders, harassment and intimidation of independent judges and the executive ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts;

Further concerned by the continuing human rights violations and the deterioration of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for the rule of law and the growing culture of impunity;

Alarmed by the number of internally displaced persons and the violations of fundamental individual and collective rights resulting from the forced evictions being carried out by the government of Zimbabwe;

  1. Condemns the human rights violations currently being perpetrated in Zimbabwe;
  2. Urges the government of Zimbabwe to cease the practice of forced evictions throughout the country, and to adhere to its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments to which Zimbabwe is a party;
  3. Urges the government of Zimbabwe to implement without further delay the recommendations contained in the African Commission Report of the 2002 Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe and the recommendations in the July 2005 Report of the UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues, in particular to ensure full and unimpeded access for the provision of aid and protection to the victims of the forced evictions and demolitions by impartial national and international humanitarian agencies and human rights monitors, and to ensure that those responsible for the violations are brought to justice without delay;
  4. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of expression, association and assembly by repealing or amending repressive legislation, such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Broadcasting Services Act and the Public Order and Security Act;
  5. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to uphold the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary and urges the government of Zimbabwe to repeal or amend Constitutional Amendment (No.17) and provide an environment conducive to constitutional reform based on fundamental rights;
  6. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to cooperate with the African Commission Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa and other African Commission Special Mechanisms, including allowing a Fact-Finding Mission to investigate the current situation of internally displaced persons in Zimbabwe;
  7. Urges the African Union to renew the mandate of the African Union Envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate the human rights implications and humanitarian consequences of the mass evictions and demolitions.

Done at Banjul, 5th December 2005

So reads the Resolution Madam Speaker. When this resolution was passed and published in Zimbabwe, it was immediately thrashed by the government – there was commentary and statements to the effect that the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights was another tool of Tony Blair and the British Government and that it had in some way been infiltrated by the British and that this resolution was solely another ploy by the British Government in search of its so called regime change policy.

Madam Speaker, in response to such allegations, it is necessary to recall how this Commission was formed in the first place. It was formed in response to the adoption of the African Charter of Human Rights by the 18th Heads of States Meeting which was held in June 1981in Nairobi, Kenya and which I believe was attended by none other than the then Prime Minister Robert Gabriel Mugabe.

In other words Mr Speaker, this is not only an African body. It is an African body that we all as Africans should be rightly proud of because it is designed to give teeth to the African Charter on Human Rights. This is not a body that is in any way an imperialistic body designed to promote the machinations of America or Britain. This is an African institution designed to ensure that Human Rights in Africa are respected, as they should be, as they are in many other parts of the world. To say that this commission is an arm of the British Government or is a lackey of the British Government is not only contemptuous of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights but is also contemptuous of the African Union itself.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is not new in the sense that it speaks out about human rights violations to the present state in this country because we know that there are many other international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch who have in the last five years issued many statements expressing concern about human rights violations in Zimbabwe.

All of those statements have been disregarded or condemned by the present government and those organisations have been accused of being western organisations promoting a Western agenda. Whilst we know that those same institutions were the very institutions that spoke out on human rights abuses perpetrated by the apartheid regime in South Africa and indeed by the Smith regime and the white minority rule in this country – these were the same organisations that protected many nationalist leaders who were imprisoned who are at present in this government.

Be that as it may Madam Speaker, the Government of Zimbabwe has been able to thrash these other human rights reports emanating from the international human rights organisation because they have been based in the West but the same does not apply to this resolution. This is a resolution that has come from an entirely African process and to that extent, it has something noble and it is set aside from many of these other human rights reports and resolutions that have emanated from Western organisations.

To that extent Madam Speaker, if we as Zimbabwean Parliamentarians ignore this resolution, in fact, we are ignoring what our African brothers and sisters are saying about our country and the benchmark that they are setting for Africans. This is a significant development and it simply can not be ignored. We, Madam Speaker, I believe as parliamentarians simply have an obligation to consider this resolution very seriously and to see what we can do together to implement the very sound calls made in the resolution.

We need to turn to some of the findings of this report and to consider the issues that have been raised by it and I believe that there are four main issues that are raised in this resolution.

The first Madam Speaker which I would put under the heading of General Human Rights Abuses Perpetrated in Zimbabwe especially the human rights abuses perpetrated under the so called Operation Murambatsvina.

Madam Speaker, there have been human rights reports issued recently stressing that the incidence of violence in this country has lessened in the last few years and that undoubtedly is the case. As some may be tempted to believe that because less people are being murdered, less people are being abducted or tortured than was the case a few years ago, then as a result our human rights situation has improved.

Madam Speaker, I would argue that an unresolved wound is in itself an ongoing human rights abuse and in this country during the last two decades we have many unresolved wounds that affect many different sectors of our society. If we go back to the 1980s we have the wounds that were created by the so called gukurahundi operation. This Government, Madam Speaker, promised that it will pay reparations to the victims of the Gukurahundi. None other than His Excellency the President has said that this was a time of madness acknowledging that this country should never go through such a thing again.

He said that there would be reparations in place. These are not my words, Madam Speaker. It is a fact, Madam Speaker that since those words were spoken no reparations have been effected and until this day there are many people who are victims of that period and I do not wish to go back to that period. This is a fact. There are victims who need reparations and who have not received any form of reparations.

Madam Speaker, let me turn to the events of the last six years. It is a fact that some 300 people have been murdered in this country in the last six years. Not a single perpetrator of those murders has been brought to book to date. When I have raised this with the Hon. Attorney General, his response has been to ask for a list of names which I am quite happy to supply. But Madam Speaker, if this was a government that was deeply concerned about murders in this country, about crimes that are taking place, about human rights abuses that have been perpetrated, the Attorney General himself would take the initiative. It is after all his constitutional obligation and it is an obligation, not a discretion that he has. He has an obligation to investigate all crimes and to prosecute all crimes vigorously. That has not happened in the course of the last six years and that is a festering sore in our national body politic.

Let me turn to Operation Murambatsvina which is the focus of this resolution, Madam Speaker: the UN report which acknowledges (disputed by this government) estimates that seven hundred thousand Zimbabweans suffered as a result of this operation. They were either displaced from their homes or displaced from their businesses. Whether that figure is an exaggeration or not, Madam Speaker, is not the point. Even if the number of people were half that, three hundred and fifty thousand, that is still a massive number of Zimbabweans who have had fundamental rights of theirs abused.

Madam Speaker, if we are honest with ourselves as an opposition and as a government, Operation Garikai has simply been a propaganda exercise. On the ground there is very little evidence of Operation Garikai. There are hardly any houses. Some of the houses that have been constructed have collapsed in the rains and other houses we now see are being allocated not to the victims but to people close to the government.

Recommendations made by credible international figures such as Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka of Tanzania, an African woman and not a European, has simply been ignored. The bottom line is that there are still people in my constituency – tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of the poor of the poorest people of Zimbabwe – suffering, with their plight completely ignored by the government. There appears to be a refusal by this government either to acknowledge the extent of the problem or if the extent of the problem is acknowledged, a refusal to take the measures necessary to assist the victims.

Where I come from, Bulawayo, it has been the churches, it has been the NGOs that have had to pick up the burden of looking after these people. Mrs. Tibaijuka’s report noted that crimes were committed during Operation Murambatsvina. The police acted in flagrant violation of the Urban Council Act and they illegally evicted people who were lawful occupiers; in many instances there was a malicious destruction of property on a grand scale. Not a single prosecution of any of the perpetrators of those crimes has ever been brought.

Madam Speaker, my friends may seek to ignore this, but human rights violation of this scale simply can not be dismissed. They are very serious issues and as this resolution shows they are being noted not just in the imperialistic west but in Africa.

The second major issue raised by this resolution concerns the fundamental freedom enjoyed by most people in the world, namely the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and the freedom of assembly. It is noteworthy that this resolution highlights repressive legislation on our statute books introduced since 2000, including AIPPA, the Broadcasting Services Act and POSA.

Madam Speaker, for all the attempts of my honourable friends to say that these repressive pieces of legislation have precedence elsewhere in the world and in Africa- we need to note, Madam Speaker, that these fascist laws (because that is what they are) – they are repugnant to Africans. They are an aberration in Africa and to that extent have no place in our statute books. We need seriously to take note of the call to amend these repressive measures. Do we see any intention of that? We certainly do not see any intention of that through the legislative process.

On the contrary to that, we see budgetary allocations passed by this honourable House last year allocating a vast amount of money to institutions that will further suppress these fundamental rights of expression, association and the like. Of particular concern is the budgetary allocation of $1.1 trillion allocated to the CIO. What is the relevance of that, Madam Speaker? A further $116 billion was allocated for developmental projects, for building and purchase of equipment for the CIO. We have seen in recent months that that money may well be spent on institutions or mechanisms that further undermine these fundamental rights. We have read reports in the daily news of the Financial Gazette being taken over by the CIO. We have seen the change in the editorial content of those newspapers especially the Mirror.

There are still no independent broadcasters in our country. When the Broadcasting Services Act was introduced a few years ago, we were told that it would facilitate independent broadcasters, but as we speak today, there are still no independent broadcasters. In Southern Africa we stand out as an exception. If you go to any one of our neighbouring states, you will find independent broadcasters, you will find a plethora of independent newspapers, they are vibrant. As I will touch on later, there is a connection; there is a correlation between these fundamental freedoms and economic development. When you crush the flow of information, you crush the economy. When you allow an unimpeded flow of information you guarantee a vibrant economy; there is a connection. These are the issues raised by the African Commission that we need to take seriously.

The third issue concerns the principle of separation of powers touched on under paragraph 5 of the Resolution. It is interesting that the African Commission focused specifically on Constitutional Amendment No 17. As you know, Constitutional Amendment No. 17 was heralded by the government as being a panacea to our problem, the final blow against colonialism. The final blow that would ensure that past colonial injustices will be addressed. So it will be curious that an African body does not view Constitutional Amendment No. 17 in the same light. Of course it touches on our key objection to Constitutional Amendment No. 17, and that is that it violates the fundamental right that every person should have to due process of law.

We on this side of the House have never disputed the right of a rational government to resolve a historical injustice as pertained in this country. I have the Honourable Minister of Housing sitting opposite me; he will recall when he was Speaker thanking me in the lobby of this House when I spoke out in Washington in 2001 saying that this was an injustice that needed to be rectified. No one disputes that, no one argues that the land holdings in Zimbabwe in 2000 were unsustainable, that is not the issue. The issue was how we acquired that land, how we equitably redistributed that land. That is what is objectionable about Constitutional Amendment No. 17, because it places the decision making process regarding the acquisition of land and redistribution of land not in neutral hands but an interested party. It takes that power away from our courts and gives it to a biased interested party. That is objectionable not just in the West, but in Africa and that is why it has been included here.

Madam Speaker, we have seen the progression of the so called land reform programme in the last five years when it was first debated in this honourable House, we were told that it was not designed to crush commercial agriculture. We have seen this programme degenerate into absolute lawlessness as prevails at present in our country. We have calls from none other than the Governor of the Reserve Bank in recent weeks, for an end to these ad hoc invasions which undermine our productive capacity. Those calls have been ignored because this programme has degenerated into lawlessness. That is the inevitable consequence when one takes the decision making process out of a neutral institution such as the judiciary, and places that decision making process in biased interested parties. If we are all honest with ourselves, if we travel in the country – not withstanding the rains that have blessed our nation in the last couple of months – the harsh reality on the ground is that we will still need food assistance this year. When I flew in yesterday from Bulawayo, it was very obvious from the air how many crops are yellow because of the lack of fertilizer. The tragedy we have is that despite the fact that we have had good rains throughout the country, we are still going to face massive food shortages. That is a direct consequence of laws such as Constitutional Amendment No. 17. To that extent, the African Commission was justified in criticising this amendment and calling for its repeal and an environment conducive to constitutional reform based on fundamental rights.

The fourth issue concerns the appeal made to the government of Zimbabwe to allow the African Commission special rapporteur to come and visit Zimbabwe. As you will recall last year, the rapporteur was turned back, was not given permission to investigate – (Interjection from Mr Chinamasa: “There were reasons”). Whatever the reasons for that, the following is the key issue: if this government has nothing to hide, if this government has a good record, then why block rapporteurs from coming in? If rapporteurs are going to come in and if they are going to be given unimpeded access to all aspects of our society, if this government does not fear such a visit taking place, then why not issue an invitation to allow these people to come to see for themselves what is taking place? If there is nothing to hide then what is the problem? We hope that particular call will be taken up.

In conclusion let me come back to an earlier theme. I sound like a record because I have mentioned this several times in this House. My friends appear to be deaf. The issue is that there is a correlation between the respect for human rights and long-term sustainable economic growth.

It is not a coincidence that one of the reasons why the Chinese economy is booming now is because there has been a liberalisation of many aspects of the Chinese society. It is not a coincidence that the strongest democracies in the world such as Japan, Switzerland and the USA are the strongest economies or countries that respect the rule of law, and they have the strongest economies.

The point I am making is that if we are patriots, if we love our nation as I do, as I am sure many of our colleagues do, if we love our nation and the people of this country, we will desire that our economy grows and not diminishes. It is not a question of removing targeted sanctions directed to those responsible for this situation. The answer is for us to heed the cause made by mature African institutions.

Let me remind you of the promises made by ZANU PF in the March general elections last year, in the full-page advertisements in The Herald and The Chronicle which promised that inflation will come down and that fuel will be available; that we will be reintegrating with the rest of the world and that the economy will be restored. That is all untrue because none of their promises have been fulfilled. They promised that inflation would come down to 800% in March. We have just approved a $50 000 note which is equivalent to R2. If we consider the largest denomination in South Africa – there is a R200 note and not a R50 000. Instead, we should have printed a $5 million note. What I am driving at is that we should rationalize and tell people that our economy is in free fall.

The tragedy is that many of my colleagues are not feeling the pinch. In fact, they have not been affected at all. In the last five years, poor people in the street are suffering in this country as they have never suffered before. There are people even close to us; there are people in this building who are employees of Parliament who cannot come out to say that the salaries they get are way too low. As a Parliamentarian, I had $15 million deposited into my account; it could buy something from two grocery shops but it does not come close to providing for the basic needs that any Zimbabwean family needs. If a Member of Parliament is paid so little, how much are our employees paid in this Parliament? How much are the teachers being paid? That is the harsh reality that is being ignored by my colleagues. It is time that my colleagues clean up that mess.

We start by not publishing resolutions like this. We start by considering what our African brothers and sisters are saying. The immediate thing that we need to do is to restore the rule of law. We should be giving instructions to the Attorney General, to the Commissioner of Police, to prosecute crimes without fear or favour.

The second thing that this house needs to do is to repeal repressive legislation, especially the legislation highlighted by the African Commission. The third thing is to enter into a debate linking constitutional reforms – (HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Inaudible interjections) – it is only through constitutional reforms that we can restore legitimacy to governance in this country. The fourth and final thing we need to do as a nation is to hold fresh elections in terms of that new constitution. Once we have done that, we will return legitimacy, not just to the Government of Zimbabwe, but also to our nation as a whole. We will restore the status of this country and that in turn will ensure that we can restore ties with institutions like the IMF and get our economy back on track.

For all the hot air coming from my friends – the crisis our nation is in – we need to act urgently and confront these issues if we are to resolve the problems that our nation is facing today.

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS: I move that the debate do now adjourn. I am going to give a very detailed response to the contribution made by the Honourable Member. I do not want the Honourable Member to mislead the House and the nation as to the resolution, which was passed by the African Commission on Human and People’s rights.

Motion put and agreed to.
Debate to resume: Thursday, 9th February 2006.

Posted in Parliamentary | 1 Comment

Proposal to broker an amicable divorce – letters to Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda

Full versions of letters to Morgan Tsvangirai (dated 27 January 2006) and Gibson Sibanda (dated 8 February 2006) can be downloaded below. The opening paragraph of both letters reads as follows…

Reference: proposal to broker an amicable divorce

I refer to our discussion […] when I first raised with you the possibility of trying to secure an amicable divorce between the two factions. As I explained to you then I have made this suggestion with regret as I firmly believe that the two factions of the MDC will never be as effective apart from each other as they would as one united and cohesive body. For that reason as you know I have been working with others to mediate since October but those efforts appear to have failed.

Letter to Morgan Tsvangirai – 20 February 2006

Letter to Gibson Sibanda – 20 February 2006

Posted in Downloadable documents, Letters | Leave a comment

Motion brought by the Hon David Coltart regarding the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution on Zimbabwe

Dated 5 December 2005: Tabled by David Coltart on 7 February 2006

NOTING the resolution of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe passed in Banjul on the 5th December 2005 set out in full below;

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights meeting at its 38th Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia from 21 November to 5 December 2005;

Considering that Zimbabwe is a Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments;

Recalling the recommendations to the government of Zimbabwe contained in the African Commission Report of the Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe in June 2002;

Further recalling the recommendations to the government of Zimbabwe by the United Nations Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe contained in her Report published on 22 July 2005;

Deeply concerned by the continued undermining of the independence of the judiciary through defiance of court orders, harassment and intimidation of independent judges and the executive ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts;

Further concerned by the continuing human rights violations and the deterioration of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for the rule of law and the growing culture of impunity;

Alarmed by the number of internally displaced persons and the violations of fundamental individual and collective rights resulting from the forced evictions being carried out by the government of Zimbabwe;

  1. Condemns the human rights violations currently being perpetrated in Zimbabwe;
  2. Urges the government of Zimbabwe to cease the practice of forced evictions throughout the country, and to adhere to its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments to which Zimbabwe is a party;
  3. Urges the government of Zimbabwe to implement without further delay the recommendations contained in the African Commission Report of the 2002 Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe and the recommendations in the July 2005 Report of the UN Special Envoy on Human Settlement Issues, in particular to ensure full and unimpeded access for the provision of aid and protection to the victims of the forced evictions and demolitions by impartial national and international humanitarian agencies and human rights monitors, and to ensure that those responsible for the violations are brought to justice without delay;
  4. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of expression, association and assembly by repealing or amending repressive legislation, such as the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Broadcasting Services Act and the Public Order and Security Act;
  5. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to uphold the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary and urges the government of Zimbabwe to repeal or amend Constitutional Amendment (No.17) and provide an environment conducive to constitutional reform based on fundamental rights;
  6. Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to cooperate with the African Commission Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons in Africa and other African Commission Special Mechanisms, including allowing a Fact-Finding Mission to investigate the current situation of internally displaced persons in Zimbabwe;
  7. Urges the African Union to renew the mandate of the African Union Envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate the human rights implications and humanitarian consequences of the mass evictions and demolitions.

Done at Banjul, 5th December 2005

NOTING that the resolution and the calls made in it appear to have been ignored to date by the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe;

CONGRATULATES AND THANKS the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights for speaking out so boldly and frankly on behalf of the victims of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe;

MOVES that this honourable House call on the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe to implement without delay the specific calls made by the African Commission to ensure that the Republic of Zimbabwe complies with her obligations in terms of The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted by the eighteenth Assembly of Heads and States and Government in June 1981 in Nairobi, Kenya.

Mover:

_____________________________
The Honourable David Coltart MP

Seconder:

______________________________
The Honourable MP

Posted in Parliamentary | Leave a comment

U.S. priorities dictate spread of democracy

Washington Post
By Peter Baker

WASHINGTON – Sitting in a prison cell halfway around the planet, an Egyptian opposition leader forced President Bush this month to confront the question of how serious he was when he vowed to devote his second term to “ending tyranny in our world.”
Ayman Nour, who dared challenge Egypt’s authoritarian leader in manipulated elections, was sentenced Christmas Eve to five years on what U.S. officials consider bogus charges. Inside the administration, a debate ensued over whether to shelve a new trade agreement with Egypt in protest. In the end, the trade talks were suspended, and an Egyptian negotiating team invited to Washington last week was told it was no longer welcome.
In the year since Bush redefined U.S. foreign policy in his second inaugural address to make the spread of democracy the nation’s primary mission, the clarion-call language has resonated in the dungeons and desolate corners of the world. But soaring rhetoric has often clashed with geopolitical reality and competing U.S. priorities.
Although the administration has enjoyed notable success in promoting liberty in some places, it has applied the speech’s principles inconsistently in others, according to analysts, activists, diplomats and officials.
Beyond its focus on Iraq, Washington has stepped up pressure on repressive regimes in countries such as Myanmar, Belarus and Zimbabwe – where the costs of a confrontation are minimal – while still gingerly dealing with China, Pakistan, Russia and others with strategic and trade significance.
In the Mideast, where the administration has centered its attention, it has promoted elections in the Palestinian territories such as today’s balloting for parliament, even as it directed money aimed at clandestinely preventing the radical Islamic group Hamas from winning. And although it has now suspended trade negotiations with Egypt, it did not publicly announce the move, nor has it cut generous U.S. aid to Cairo.
“The administration deserves credit, but it’s just a start,” said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, a group that promotes democracy.
In its annual survey ranking nations as free, partly free or not free, the group upgraded nine nations or territories in 2005 and downgraded four. Among those deemed freer were Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, where peaceful revolutions overthrew autocratic governments; Lebanon, where Syrian occupation troops were pressured to withdraw; and Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, where trailblazing elections were held.
Overall, Freedom House concluded, “the past year was one of the most successful for freedom” since the survey began in 1972.
At the same time, Human Rights Watch released its annual report, saying the Bush administration undermined its credibility in promoting freedom abroad by embracing abusive interrogation tactics in the battle with terrorists.
“There’s no question that the issue of torture in particular has compromised the U.S. voice, and not only torture but a manifold list of other human rights issues,” said the group’s associate director, Carroll Bogert, the group’s associate director, said.
The broader question is the degree to which Bush’s speech marked genuine change in policy rather than so much talk. In many parts of the government, democracy promotion seems still to take a backseat to other goals.
After the government in Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of protesters in Andijon, for instance, the Pentagon resisted any tough response to protect its military base there. Ultimately, even the restrained statements by the U.S. government alienated autocratic Uzbek President Islam Karimov, who threw out the U.S. military.
In other places, the United States has done more than talk. In Kyrgyzstan, the U.S. government financed pro-democracy groups and provided generators to print an opposition newspaper before its revolution.
In Belarus, another former Soviet republic ruled by an iron-fisted leader, Bush’s words also stir hope. “We draw strength from these statements,” said Vladimir Kolas, chairman of the Council of the Belarusian Intelligentsia opposing President Alexander Lukashenko. “We understand there are limits to what the U.S. can do. But we do need strong and decisive statements … that they will not recognize falsified election results.”
The Bush administration has been willing to stay tough on Belarus and others it labeled “outposts of tyranny,” such as Myanmar, also known as Burma, and Zimbabwe. Bush lobbied Asian leaders at a November summit in South Korea to bring Myanmar before the U.N. Security Council, and as a result the council had an unprecedented discussion last month. The United States also renewed economic sanctions adopted in 2003.
Opposition activists in Myanmar said they were grateful for U.S. efforts to highlight repression in their country. But despite these measures, little has changed, and some diplomats believe the situation has deteriorated. More than 1,100 political prisoners are behind bars, according to Amnesty International, and all regional offices of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy remain shuttered.
In Zimbabwe, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Dell has been so outspoken about President Robert Mugabe’s government that he has been threatened with expulsion. David Coltart, an opposition member of parliament, said Zimbabwe has been on the Bush administration’s radar screen, even if not the president’s.
“George Bush is too preoccupied by Iraq to be personally engaged in the Zimbabwe crisis,” he said. “But Colin Powell certainly was a friend of those struggling to bring democracy. It’s too early to say whether Condoleezza Rice is focused on Zimbabwe.”
Elsewhere, the U.S. hand is not seen as readily. In East Africa, newspapers are filled with columns asking why the Bush administration ignores their undemocratic leaders. When it comes to places such as China and Russia, the Bush administration prefers private, friendly advice to ringing public denunciations. Sometimes it passes on both. Although U.S. officials have said they would like Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who took over Pakistan in a military coup, to give up his army post and govern as a civilian, Musharraf said last year that Bush has never raised the issue with him.
Then there are Iran and North Korea, the two top enemies on Bush’s list. The president appointed a special envoy on human rights in North Korea, but Abdollah Momeni of the Office for Fostering Unity, an Iranian student group, wants more constructive help. “If they only make noises about this, or if they think that through military action democracy can be achieved, they are moving on the wrong path,” said Momeni, who is appealing a five-year prison sentence. “Military action against a country would dry up the democratic blossoms.” But, he added, “More action and less talking is needed.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

EC ambassadors to tour Manicaland

The Herald

FIFTEEN ambassadors of the European Union accredited to Zimbabwe and the Head of Delegation of the European Commission are this week visiting EU-funded projects in Manicaland Province.

The visit, which is organised by the delegation of the EC, is taking the ambassadors to Rusape, Nyanga and Mutare, where several EU-funded projects are under implementation.

In a statement this week, the head of the EC in Zimbabwe, Mr Xavier Marchal, said the visit would cover a food distribution operation organised by the World Food Programme with EU funding in Rusape and a tour of an agricultural project funded by ECHO, the humanitarian department of the EC.

The ambassadors will also visit the Sangano Dairy Project. The dairy project, funded by the EU since 2001, involves the establishment of milk processing centre and improvement of the farmers’ dairy herd and on farm production through training. The project is part of the Micro Project Programme (MPP) covering the whole country.

They will also visit the NATPHARM regional storage centre in Mutare. This is part of an EU health support programme, which mainly deals with the procurement of vital and essential medicines, vaccines, hospital equipment and spare parts to be used by public health institutions.

However, eyebrows have been raised after the EC statement revealed that the ambassadors would hold a meeting at the Mutare office of the Legal Resources Foundation (LRF), a project whose objective they say is to encourage a democratic environment in Zimbabwe and the respect of people’s rights. But most Zimbabweans know the LRF as a group of anti-Zimbabwe lawyers formerly headed by MDC secretary for legal affairs Mr David Coltart.

The EU imposed illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe after being drawn into the bilateral dispute between Harare and London.

Zanu-PF Secretary for Information and Publicity Cde Nathan Shamuyarira urged the EU ambassadors to stop practising double standards.

“They must stop the double standards where on one hand they say they are funding humanitarian projects yet on the other they are imposing illegal sanctions on Zimbabweans,” he said.

Cde Shamuyarira urged the EU envoys to direct their energies towards advising authorities in their native countries to lift the illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe when they meet in Brussels, Belgium, next month.

“EU ambassadors should report to their capitals that Zimbabwe is an internally democratic country. In the last 10 months we have had elections of parliamentary candidates and senators, including for those constituencies they are visiting,” he added. In their statement, the ambassadors said the EU restricted its co-operation with Zimbabwe in February 2002.

“Financial support for projects has been suspended, except that in direct support of the population, in particular in the social sectors. Contributions to operations of a humanitarian nature have not been affected. The EU is also supporting activities to support democratisation, the respect of human rights and the rule of law.”

Political analyst and head of the Media and Information Commission Dr Tafataona Mahoso dismissed the ambassadors’ statement as Euro-speak propaganda.

“You know what happened to Afghanistan when (American president) George Bush dropped bombs that resembled food packages.

This is what is happening here. You should count the number of times they (ambassadors) say ‘humanitarian’ in their statement. The overemphasis on humanitarianism shows that this is not at all humanitarian. One cannot claim humanitarianism but should be seen to be humanitarian,” Dr Mahoso said.

He added that the visit to the LRF offices gives the whole plot away, saying the organisation was at the centre of defining human rights as “white rights” and the rule of law as “rule of white law”.

LRF was at the forefront of legal challenges launched by white, former commercial farmers in protest at the acquisition of white-held farms earmarked for resettlement.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Now aristocrats will be evicted for living too close to Mugabe

Daily Telegraph (UK)

Harare – Owners of property next to President Robert Mugabe’s retirement mansion have received written warning that their houses will be confiscated by the state. The move represents the first time Zimbabwe’s elite, both black and white, have suffered at first hand. Millions of Zimbabweans were affected by last year’s “clearances” of urban shantytowns and much of the rural population hit by Mr Mugabe’s war on white farmers. But, until now, many members of the aristocracy have escaped unscathed – and even set up home in close proximity to his putative retirement home. Mr Mugabe, 82 next month, has nearly completed a huge luxury residence which will cost more than £6 million. It is probably the largest private dwelling in Africa. The three floors amount to approximately four acres and include a ballroom, media complex and 24 bedrooms. The Chinese-styled palace overlooks dams and a newly-planted 50-acre garden protected by a 12ft wall. The interior includes a Moroccan-style public room plastered by north African craftsmen. Original Chinese decorations have been used in several other public rooms. The palace is overlooked by scores of luxury residences, some still under construction in a special estate, Borrowdale Brooke, about 18 miles north of Harare. The first 15 homeowners at Borrowdale had warning letters on Wednesday from the valuation department of the Local Government Ministry. “This serves to advise you that your property falls in a designated security area in terms of general notice of 255 of 2004, and we will be in contact with you soon with a view to inspecting your house for valuation purposes.”

Scores more residents living in lanes around the palace say they are sure they will receive similar letters soon. Among them are older couples hoping to sell their homes and retire closer to children who left Zimbabwe during the upheavals of the past six years. “We will never be able to get out now,” said an 84-year-old woman. An estate agent specialising in Borrowdale properties, said: “These letters wiped out the value of any property close to the president’s palace. Those who have actually received letters warning them their homes will be acquired must know that they will never be able to sell their homes and that they will receive no compensation.” The Zimbabwe government is bankrupt and is struggling to pay its civil servants’ wages. It has no money to import essentials such as fuel. Only a handful of more than 4,000 white farmers whose homes, lands and businesses were confiscated by the state in the past six years received compensation, in most cases less than two per cent of the value of their property. David Coltart, a legal spokesman of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, said: “Mugabe’s house has been under construction for years and this irrational, bankrupt regime only notifies residents now.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Shoot to kill

Newsweek
By Joshua Hammer

Inside the hidden links between American big-game hunters and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe dictatorship

Jocelyn Chiwenga is not a woman to be taken lightly. The wife of Gen. Constantine Chiwenga, commander-in-chief of Zimbabwe’s armed forces, Mrs. Chiwenga has earned a reputation in her own right as a vicious enforcer for President Robert Mugabe and his ruling Zanu PF. In April 2002 she reportedly showed up at a farm outside Harare, the capital, with an armed gang and ordered the farm’s white owner to turn over his property to her or be killed, according to documents filed in a Zimbabwean court. One year later, Chiwenga accosted Gugulethu Moyo, an attorney for a pro-opposition newspaper, and beat her so severely that she had to seek medical attention. “Your paper wants to encourage anarchy in this country,” Chiwenga reportedly shouted as she punched and slapped the 28-year-old lawyer on a Harare street. “Chiwenga is as close to the center of power as you get,” says David Coltart, a parliamentarian of the Movement for Democratic Change, the country’s main opposition party. She also knows how to use her power. About three years ago, Chiwenga won an auction for a coveted lease on a 220-square-mile tract of bush, owned by Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority, located just outside Hwange National Park in southwest Zimbabwe. Abounding in the Big Five – lion, elephant, Cape buffalo, leopard, and black rhino – Chiwenga’s property has since become a choice destination for professional hunters, particularly well-heeled Americans.

Now, Chiwenga’s business ambitions – as well as her political clout – have brought her to the attention of the U.S. government. Last November, the Treasury Department added Chiwenga, 50, to a list of 128 Mugabe relatives and cronies who are “undermining democratic processes or institutions in Zimbabwe.” The Treasury Department has blocked the assets of those on the list and established penalties of up to $250,000 and 10 years’ imprisonment for anyone who does business with them. And that executive order has put dozens, if not hundreds, of Americans who hunt on her land in legal jeopardy. Chiwenga’s sanctioning by the U.S. government has drawn new attention to the unsavory, and usually hidden, links between American sportsmen and the Mugabe dictatorship. During the past six years, Zimbabwe’s economy has been in free fall, with the country’s gross domestic product dropping by half and agricultural production sinking by more than 80 percent. But hunting has remained one of the country’s few thriving industries, bringing in as much as $30 million annually, according to conservationists and professional hunters in Zimbabwe. Much of that cash has gone into the coffers of Zanu PF insiders, who have gained control of government-owned safari land at below market prices, reportedly through rigged auctions in many cases.

One of Chiwenga’s neighbors in the Victoria Falls area is Webster Shamu, Mugabe’s Minister of Policy Implementation, and a key architect of Operation Murambatsvina – “Clean out the Rubbish” – the brutal slum clearance program that has left some 700,000 poor black Zimbabweans homeless. (Shamu is among the original 77 insiders who had their assets frozen and were barred from entering the United States by the Treasury Department in 2003). Another big player is Jacob Mudenda, the former governor of Matabeleland North. All of them do a brisk business catering to professional American hunters, who make up about half of the clientele, according to industry insiders. The Mugabe cronies-turned-safari operators are usually careful to conceal their direct involvement in the hunting business. Jocelyn Chiwenga, for example, seems to work through a network of agents that markets safaris heavily in the United States but never reveal the name of the property’s primary lease holder.

Among them: Rob and Barry Style, owners of Buffalo Range Safaris, based in Harare. The Style brothers are regular participants at the Annual Hunters’ Convention scheduled for next week in Reno, Nevada – a three-day marketing extravaganza sponsored by Safari Club International, America’s largest hunting club – and at other venues where American hunters congregate. Although Rob Style denied in an e-mail to Newsweek that he had a business relationship with Chiwenga, several professional hunters in Zimbabwe insist that the brothers have frequently taken clients to shoot animals on her property. The Hunting Guide, an industry newsletter published in the United States, also names Buffalo Range Safaris as a hunting-safari operator on Chiwenga-owned land. Asked whether Safari Club International was concerned about the prospect of facilitating commercial links between American hunters and a sanctioned Zimbabwean figure, David Nagore, an SCI spokesman, says “On the advice of counsel, SCI has no comment on the matter.” American hunters are also flocking to private-game reserves that were seized without compensation, and sometimes with violence, from white farmers and ranchers as part of Mugbe’s radical land-reform program, which reached a peak in 2002. That property is now mostly in the hands of Zanu PF activists and Zimbabwe independence war veterans – considered to be among Mugabe’s most diehard supporters.

While hunting on these properties doesn’t violate U.S. sanctions, human-rights activists and political opposition figures in Zimbabwe say that it is morally objectionable and helps to give legitimacy to a repressive regime. In addition, it is on these ranches, Zimbabwe conservationists charge, that some of the worst abuses of the country’s environment are taking place-abuses that could threaten the survival of Zimbabwe’s rich wildlife, especially the endangered black rhino. Many of the land owners who took this property by force have no experience in wildlife conservation: they reportedly ignore strict hunting quotas established by the Wildlife Authority on prized species such as lion and leopard. They also allegedly kill animals, including rhino, inside protected wildlife areas such as Hwange National Park, one of southern Africa’s most renowned game reserves. “Poaching is rife,” says Johnny Rodrigues, the head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force, a private activist group. “There’s no law and order here.”

Sorting through the thicket of charges and countercharges can be difficult. Larry Cumming, a white rancher, purchased Woodland Estates near Victoria Falls more than 30 years ago and developed it into one of the country’s best hunting and safari reserves. “I built dams, fenced the property, sunk 22 boreholes, purchased wildlife,” he says. But in 2001 the Mugabe regime forced him to surrender half his property – and half his hunting revenue – to 89 destitute Zimbabwean families as part of its land-redistribution plan. Threats were exchanged and, in 2003, Cumming and his wife fled the ranch and moved to Victoria Falls. At that point, a local safari company, Inyathi Hunting – partly owned by Mudenda, the former provincial governor and a close associate of Mugabe – signed a deal with the ranch’s new owners to take over commercial hunts on the property. During the past two years, Cumming charges, Inyathi has been ignoring quotas, hunting for game on other properties, and failing to keep track of wounded animals – a serious violation of hunting ethics. “Inyathi is hunting there knowing that they will not have the property forever, so there’s pillage and rape [of the environment],” Cumming charges.

Steve Williams, the founder of Inyathi and now a marketing consultant for the company, says that he and his partners had no qualms about buying rights to hunt on land that Cummings says was stolen from him. “If your government goes with it [as a policy], then you have to go with it,” he says. Williams claims that Cumming is spreading untrue reports because he is embittered about losing the property. “I can’t condemn the man for being emotional about something that’s been his for years, but we were never a part of that,” he says. He argues that much of the hunting revenue benefits poor black Zimbabweans who wouldn’t have shared the wealth during the days of white ownership. “The 89 black families who have taken over Woodland Estate now have safe drinking water, a better standard of living, an income. We’ve taken the blows, the allegations, the ridicule of people like Cumming. But we’re operating the property in a manner that we are proud of,” Williams says.

That may be so. But in September 2005, Mudenda, along with three other top officials of Zanu PF, were accused by a conservation group in Zimbabwe of using fake hunting permits and poaching wildlife in the Intensive Conservation Areas in Matabeleland, established by the government in 1991 to protect rhino, elephant, lion and other prized species. All have denied the charges. Debate also swirls around what many industry sources call the most controversial operator in Zimbabwe: Out of Africa Safaris. Founded by four former South African policemen and based in both South Africa and Overland Park, Kan., the company has done a brisk business taking a heavily American clientele to hunt on several ranches that, according to industry watchdogs in Zimbabwe, were seized by Zanu PF activists and independence war veterans. Critics, including the Zimbabwean Association of Tourism and Safari Operators, say that the group uses poorly trained hunting guides who, among other violations, sometimes endanger the lives of their clients and overhunt species in violation of the Zimbabwean government’s hunting rules.

Zimbabwe’s Parks and Wildlife Authority banned Out of Africa last year from operating in the country. “This is an unscrupulous organization that doesn’t respect the environment and pursues unsustainable quotas,” says David Coltart, the opposition leader. Conservationist Johnny Rodrigues calls the company the most “flagrant violator” of hunting regulations in Zimbabwe. Dawie Groenewald, one of the founding partners of Out of Africa, denies that his company has done anything ethically wrong and says that he has been slandered by white Zimbabwean hunters. “The white Zimbabweans hunting in Zim don’t want anyone else coming in there to hunt – they hate South Africans coming to hunt in their kingdom,” he told Newsweek. Out of Africa’s attorney, Kevin Anderson, says that “these allegations about poaching and other illegal activities have been floating around for several years and they’ve never been substantiated.” Anderson also says that Out of Africa recently decided to stop organizing hunts in Zimbabwe because “it’s just become too difficult.” Whatever the case, next week in Reno, Out of Africa will set up its usual booth at the SCI convention – just down the hall from Buffalo Range Safaris, according to the SCI Web site. But for the hundreds of American sportsmen browsing for an African safari next week, finding out the full story of those two companies’ activities in Zimbabwe will require a real hunting expedition

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Ncube not a natural

The Zimbabwean

EDITOR – In a development that shocked many Zimbabweans a couple of years ago, the State owned daily newspaper, The Herald carried full page headline story which gave the profile of MDC Secretary-General, Professor Welshman Ncube. It was very rare for the state owned media to give positive coverage to anyone in the opposition. Zimbabweans had gotten used to stories that denigrated the MDC leaders, Morgan Tsvangirai and Professor Welshman Ncube included. In a rare admission, Professor Ncube admitted in that article that he was not a natural politician. A few years down the line, Professor Ncube has proved beyond doubt his own personal assessment of himself in an article carried in the Daily Mirror of 4 January 2006: “Even if Zanu (PF) says there is an election for a toilet caretaker we will participate”, Professor Ncube is reported to have said these words when he addressed over 600 pro-Senate supporters in Mt Pleasant after the restructuring of his faction’s Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central and Harare provincial executive committees. Like a few other officials in the pro-senate faction, which the professor himself prefers to call the “pro respect for the MDC constitution group”, Professor Ncube had, since the beginning of the crisis that has split the party leaders into two opposing camps, been saying that he was only supporting the idea to participate in Zimbabwe’s senatorial elections because there are others within the party who think it is necessary to participate in these elections. But the statement he made in Mount Pleasant, which in essence means that he thinks that we have to participate in every election Mugabe comes up with, even if it is irrelevant. The MDC opposed the re-introduction of a senate, but in a surprising turn, some officials of the party decided that the party had to participate in the senate elections, even though many prominent Zimbabweans, including the MDC’s Secretary for Legal Affairs, David Coltart, described the senate as an irrelevant institution in Zimbabwe. It would appear from Professor Ncube’s statement that he has been pursuing his own interests under the guise of protecting the democratic rights of those MDC officials who wanted the party to participate in the senate elections. One cannot rule out the possibility that he could be the very person who sold the idea to have the MDC participate in the senate elections, which idea was quickly bought up especially by those who saw the possibility of making easy money as senators. Thank you Professor Ncube for showing your true colours. Having admitted that he is not a natural politician, the best Professor Ncube can do is to quit politics and concentrate on his legal profession or farming. There are unconfirmed reports that Professor Ncube has not been evicted from a farm he owns in the Midlands Province of Zimbabwe because he got it from Mugabe’s Zanu (PF).

Benjamin Chitate, Auckland, New Zealand

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment