The Mugabe Regime – tyranny about to end?

By David Coltart | Published November 18, 2003

David Coltart

South African President Thabo Mbeki in a recent State visit to Canada assured Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien that talks were taking place in Zimbabwe between the Mugabe regime and the opposition MDC and that a settlement was likely soon. These comments follow similar confident assurances given by President Mbeki to President George Bush when he visited South Africa in July.

These assertions are not new. President Mbeki first commenced his policy of “quiet diplomacy” in April 2000 following the first brutal murders committed earlier that same month by the Mugabe regime against the opposition in the run up to the 2000 Parliamentary elections. Since then he has repeatedly stated that this policy was the best way of resolving the crisis in Zimbabwe.

The MDC has stated repeatedly since July that whilst there have in the past been a few informal discussions with elements of the Mugabe regime no agreement has been reached. In fact since President Bush’s visit no discussions or talks of any description have taken place. The Mugabe regime itself has issued similar denials about the so-called progress of the talks about talks.

The only person who persistently insists that talks are taking place, that agreement has almost been reached and that a settlement is imminent, is President Mbeki. Whilst one doesn’t wish to question President Mbeki’s good faith one wonders what sort of intelligence he is receiving. What does he know that we don’t know? Has he been advised of something that even the head of our dialogue team, Hon. Professor Welshman Ncube doesn’t know? The South Africans counter these denials from both parties as coyness on their part – in other words part of their negotiating strategy and, accordingly, untrue. So what in fact is happening?

In answering this question it is instructive to draw a comparison between what is taking place in Zimbabwe today and what happened in South Africa after the release of Nelson Mandela and the commencement of the Codesa talks which led to the end of apartheid and the first democratic elections in 1994. Whilst there were major setbacks and a continuation of violent actions, including those perpetrated by a third force, President FW De Klerk did ensure that an environment was created to facilitate discussions.

Codesa itself was conducted in a relatively transparent fashion and the general public was at least aware of its existence and what progress was being made. In other words aside from the inevitable doublespeak and setbacks, that are part and parcel of any settlement talks, the world was able to judge from an objective reality that talks were taking place, that all the parties to them were engaged in the process and that they were bearing fruit.

The situation prevailing in Zimbabwe today is a far cry from what happened in South Africa in the early 1990s. Whereas in South Africa attempts were made by the apartheid regime to create a more conducive environment for talks the converse applies in Zimbabwe today and the lie regarding the success of the talks and “quiet diplomacy” is given in the harsh objective reality of the political crack down that has been experienced in Zimbabwe, ironically since Thabo Mbeki became George Bush’s “point man” in July. This harsh objective reality is given in five indicators which show what the Mugabe regime’s true intentions are.

1. The August supplementary budget

In August the Zimbabwean Parliament debated a supplementary budget for the 2003 financial year. Most budgets are a clear guide as to the policies which any government is about to implement and this budget is no exception. The budget for the CIO (Zimbabwe’s equivalent of the Stazi) doubled to a total of Z$ 10 billion. The salary budget for the parent Ministry of the notorious Youth Brigade (the so called “Green Bombers”, Mugabe’s version of the Hitler Youth) went up from Z$ 1,2 billion to Z$ 3,4 billion. To put these increases in context the total budget for drugs and medical expenses for all of Zimbabwe’s prisoners (conservatively estimated to number 22,000) went up from the original figure of Z$ 400 million by a paltry Z$ 100 million to Z$ 0,5 billion. Put another way the regime is happy to spend billions on institutions that are designed to instill fear in the public but is only prepared to spend approximately Z$ 23000, or US$ 4, per prisoner in a prison system ravaged by Aids and overcrowding.

2. The new food distribution policy

Largely as a result of the chaotic land and economic policies over half the Zimbabwean population faces starvation. The Mugabe regime has turned this situation to its own benefit as it has used food as a political weapon. The World Food Programme has attempted to negate this policy by insisting that NGOs distribute food donated by foreign governments and institutions. In August the regime issued a new food distribution directive that WFP sourced food must be distributed by government agents.

Whilst this caused a flutter in the donor community and a Memorandum of Understanding (that the preexisting system of food distribution by NGOs would continue) being agreed to between the donor community and the regime, the fact remains that the original directive has not been withdrawn. Whether the Memorandum of Agreement or the directive holds sway is not the point. There was never any need for the new directive and its issuance is a clear demonstration of what the regime’s intentions are – it would still like to use food as a weapon.

3. Harassment of the MDC and civil society

Immediately after the Bush/Mbeki meeting in early July the MDC made several conciliatory gestures to facilitate negotiations. Its MPs and Morgan Tsvangirai attended the opening of Parliament by Mugabe (having previously boycotted any functions attended by him); it postponed further mass action (having organized two extremely successful nationwide strikes in March and June) and advised that it was prepared to suspend the court challenge to Mugabe’s March 2002 election. Those actions have not been reciprocated by anything other than ongoing harassment of the MDC by the regime. The August Urban Council elections were marred by violence, intimidation, fraud and abuse of the electoral process by the regime. Despite this the MDC still managed to win control of 11 of the 12 municipal councils and controls the five largest cities in the country.

Spurious prosecutions against MDC leaders have continued and new prosecutions commenced. A few weeks ago 3 MDC employees were shot in the MDC headquarters by a ZANU (PF) supporter; as is customary the wounded employees were arrested and the ZANU (PF) culprit has not been prosecuted. On the 18th November the entire MDC campaign team for the forthcoming Kadoma Constituency by-election was arrested and the same team denied access to the voters’ roll for the constituency. These are but a sample of the types of harassment the MDC continues to endure. Pro-democracy efforts by civil society are not exempt as demonstrated by the violent suppression of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Union’s peaceful protests by the Police on the 18th November. Even the ANC’s tripartite alliance partner, COSATU, recognized the extent of the suppression and threatened to shut down Zimbabwe’s borders with South Africa.

The point is that far from liberalizing the political environment the regime has done the very opposite since July.

4. The banning of the Daily News

Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo have in the past year expressed disquiet regarding legislation designed to silence the press such as the so called “Access to Information” Act (AIPPA) and announced that they had received assurances from the regime that the draconian aspects of the Act would be repealed. Whilst the Act has been amended the draconian measures are still firmly in place and in September were utilized effectively to ban the only independent daily newspaper, with the highest circulation of all newspapers, the Daily News. This is the only paper the average Zimbabwean can afford.

Excessive force has been employed by the Police to ensure that the Daily News remains closed – computers have been confiscated and senior editorial staff, journalists and directors of the company have been detained. The regime shows no sign of allowing the Daily News to open again, indeed government controlled newspapers have celebrated the “demise” of the Daily News in their columns. Threats have been issued by the regime’s Minister of Information, Jonathan Moyo, against the only two remaining independent newspapers, one a weekly and the other a Sunday paper. When the regime’s Minister of Justice was asked in Parliament recently by me whether Moyo’s comments reflected the regime’s policy the retort was that the “law” would have to take its course against these other newspapers, another clear threat and an indication that the regime has no intention of creating an environment conducive to negotiations.

Threats have even now been directed against the Administrative Court Judge, Michael Majuru, who ruled recently that the Daily News was lawfully entitled to operate. All of these measures are designed to ensure that a free press is not allowed to operate in Zimbabwe.

5. The militarization of institutions and society

Whilst in Canada President Mbeki indicated that there was a prospect of a coalition government emerging in Zimbabwe soon. This sentiment is not matched by facts on the ground. On the same day President Mbeki spoke in Canada General Zvinavashe, the Commander of the Armed Forces, announced his intention to retire and to go into some form of “national” position. Speculation is rife that Mugabe’s intention is to appoint Zvinavashe as Vice President to replace the late Simon Muzenda. This would be consistent with Mugabe’s policy of the past few years to appoint military men to head the Prison service, the Grain Marketing Board, the Electoral Supervisory Commission, secret police and even Provinces – the latter demonstrated by Mugabe’s appointment two weeks ago as Governor of Manicaland Province of the officer in charge of the regime’s military operations in the Congo. The appointment of this army officer has resulted in hostilities being directed against MDC leaders in Manicaland in the past few days.

All in all there is nothing to indicate that the Mugabe regime has any intention of negotiating a peaceful and democratic solution to Zimbabwe’s crisis. On the contrary there is every indication that the regime is digging in.

What many throughout the world do not seem to grasp is that Mugabe is a tyrant and tyrants do not negotiate their way out of power. What also is not appreciated is that Mugabe has very compelling reasons why he fears losing power. Only two groups of people fully know what happened when Mugabe deployed his North Korean trained Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland in January 1983 – the surviving victims and the perpetrators responsible for the massacres of over 20000 people and the torture of tens of thousands of others. Mugabe himself is in the unique position of knowing both what happened (having engineered and directed it in the first place) and of knowing the depth of anger still felt by the victims (routinely reported to him by his intelligence services). Just last week the Supreme Court, increasingly a willing arm of the regime, ruled to suppress the publication of government reports prepared in the early 1980s which detail what happened during this period.

Furthermore few appreciate the extent to which the Mugabe regime has looted the resources of Zimbabwe in the last few years. The leaders of the regime know they simply cannot relinquish power if they are to continue to hide and retain their ill gotten gain. It does not matter what amnesty guarantees the MDC gives Mugabe and those around him who are guilty of crimes against humanity and corruption. They know that there is nothing anyone can do to protect themselves from the wrath of the Zimbabwean public and international law once they lose the safe haven of political power.

Because of this all consuming fear Mugabe himself will not consider resigning unless three conditions are met. Firstly, a broad consensus will have to emerge within the ZANU (PF) leadership regarding a successor to take over from Mugabe as leader of the party. The party is seriously divided on this issue at present and Mugabe knows that if he goes prematurely it could lead to serious internecine strife. Secondly, Mugabe would have to be satisfied that that proposed successor would not sell him down the river a la President Mwanawasa’s treatment of former President Chiluba in neighbouring Zambia this year. One of Mugabe’s greatest nightmares is the prospect of him being offered up as a sacrificial lamb to appease the international community after losing power. Thirdly, Mugabe would have to be satisfied that this chosen successor is able to win a national Presidential election, in other words that this person would be able to command support nationwide from, at the very least, rank and file ZANU (PF) members.

Mugabe’s dilemma is that there is no suitable candidate who meets all three of the criteria. There certainly is no consensus within the ZANU (PF) leadership regarding a successor. Unless ZANU (PF) has played its cards close to its chest well there does not appear to be any resolution to this problem in sight unless General Zvinavashe is viewed as a compromise candidate between the Mnangagwa and Mujuru factions. Zvinavashe and Mnangagwa would be the only candidates that Mugabe would trust not to betray him but both do not command national support. A further complication is that both are also on the UN sanctions list as a result of their nefarious activities in the Congo and as a result would not be able to secure international support and recognition easily, which is vital if the economy is to be turned around. Former Finance Minister Makoni is probably the only leader who would get national and international support but Mugabe would never trust Makoni to keep him out of jail. Until a leader does emerge who satisfies these criteria Mugabe will not budge.

The facts are obvious. The Mugabe regime has paid lip service to negotiations and has no real intention of seeing them through to their logical conclusion. All the regime has done in the last few months is buy time whilst simultaneously tightening its grip on power. In this context it is appalling that some in the international community are seeking to relieve, rather than increase, pressure against the regime.

International pressure against the regime should be increased in the following ways:

  1. Existing targeted sanctions against those leaders of the regime responsible for gross human rights abuses and corruption should be maintained, strengthened and broadened. It should be stressed that the MDC is not calling for the imposition of general economic sanctions, and has never done so. It is only the regime’s propaganda machine that has put out the lie that the MDC has called for economic sanctions.
  2. Those States still giving moral support to the regime should be engaged on a bilateral basis and encouraged to speak out against the human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. In particular world leaders should no longer accept the glib assurances that all is well (which fly in the face of the harsh factual reality of Zimbabwe) made by those who have undertaken to resolve the crisis on behalf of the international community.
  3. The Mugabe regime has effectively stemmed the flow of information out of the country by banning foreign journalists and independent local newspapers such as the Daily News. President Obasanjo said on the 17th November that one of the purposes of his visit to Zimbabwe was to find out for himself what was happening in the country. Whilst his efforts are greatly appreciated there is no way he could accurately assess what is going on in the country in a whistle stop visit to Harare lasting only a few hours. What is needed is for an eminent persons group to come to Zimbabwe for at least a week. That group will need to travel the country and must have an opportunity to speak to rank and file Zimbabweans, the opposition and civil society groups.
  4. The international community should take every opportunity to invite opposition politicians, civic leaders and human rights activists to international fora and other meetings to give them an opportunity to explain to the world just what is happening in Zimbabwe. Once the full enormity of what is going on in Zimbabwe is appreciated internationally more will be motivated to do something constructive to resolve the crisis.
  5. Greater attention should be paid to those who are being subjected to massive human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. In particular greater international attention should be paid to the plight of people like Morgan Tsvangirai and many other lesser known MDC and civil society activists facing spurious, trumped up charges some of which potentially carry the death penalty.
  6. Efforts must be made to raise the Zimbabwean crisis in the United Nations General Assembly. In particular consideration should be given to the application of the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty given the Mugabe regime’s abuse of WFP food aid and the use of food as a political weapon against the Zimbabwean populace. The situation in Zimbabwe cries out for a visit by Secretary General Kofi Annan.
  7. International resources should be secured to support civil society groups and human rights NGOs that have been assisting victims of the Mugabe regime and are engaged in non violent democratic opposition to the regime. Likewise resources should be obtained to ensure that a free and fair electoral environment is obtained, for it is only through free and fair elections that legitimacy and stability can be restored to Zimbabwe.

When Presidents Mbeki and Bush held a joint press conference in Pretoria in July they both acknowledged that the Zimbabwean crisis demanded urgent attention. Tragically another four months have been allowed to slip by and if anything the crisis has grown. Zimbabwe has the fastest declining economy in the world. It is experiencing hyper-inflation with rates well over 500% and sharply rising. Three million Zimbabweans have sought refuge in neighbouring States and elsewhere in the last few years. The numbers of refugees pouring out of the country grow daily and are now impacting fledgling, fragile democracies in the region. Aids infection rates are amongst the highest in the world with over one in four people infected. The health system is collapsing as are other social services. Over five million Zimbabweans face starvation in the coming months and there is no short term relief in sight because of the regime’s chaotic land and economic policies which will ensure that even if there are good rains this coming rainy season insufficient food will be grown. Life has, in short, become intolerable for the vast majority of Zimbabweans.

The pro-democracy opposition has been accused by some of not being ready to govern. It has been accused of lacking unity and vision. It has been accused of not having a concrete “way forward” out of this crisis once new elections are finally held. It is also accused by its detractors of being a stooge of the West and whites. This criticism and propaganda ignores the factual reality. The MDC, despite operating in one of the most draconian political environments in the world, has almost half the elected seats in Parliament and this year commenced governing 11 of 12 local governments in the country’s largest cities. Despite the arrest, torture and detention of virtually every single member of its National Executive and Parliamentary caucus the unity and determination to govern of the MDC has never been stronger. The MDC has spent the whole of 2003 re-crafting its policies to cater for the rapidly changing economic environment caused by the Mugabe regime’s disastrous policies and these will be presented to the MDC’s membership at a convention in December for ratification. The draft policy document approved at a recent National Executive meeting is impressive.

The opposition has fought a principled non violent campaign to gain power peacefully and constitutionally but its options have been systematically terminated by the regime. These actions of this tyrannical regime will only strengthen the hand of hawks and reduce the chances of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. If Zimbabwe implodes there will be devastating consequences for the region as a whole and much of the fine work done by African democrats such as President Mbeki will be undone. As difficult as it is for President Mbeki and other influential democratic leaders to deal with a tyrant in their midst the time is now for them to vocalize the principled African Renaissance leadership that all in SADC expect of them.

Time is rapidly running out for Zimbabwe and the international community must act urgently and decisively to avoid a major humanitarian catastrophe.

David Coltart MP
Bulawayo

David Coltart has been a human rights lawyer in Bulawayo for the last 20 years. In 2000 he was elected to Parliament in the Bulawayo South Constituency. He stood against a former ZANU (PF) cabinet minister and won with an 84% majority. He is presently the MDC Shadow Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

FALL TO RISE, SLEEP TO WAKE

By David Coltart | Published September 2, 2003

When I woke up this morning and thought of the thousands of Zimbabweans who confronted tyranny with their votes this weekend I was reminded of Robert Browning’s words:

“One who never turned his back but marched breast forward;
Never doubted clouds would break;
Never dreamed though right were worsted wrong would triumph;
Held we fall to rise, are baffled to fight better;
Sleep to wake.”

In my mind these words epitomize the spirit of the MDC and its courageous supporters countrywide which has been demonstrated in the stunning urban council results. “Stunning?” some may ask. After all the MDC lost Kwe Kwe and Kadoma and lost a few small towns in Mashonaland. Kwe Kwe and Kadoma were both Parliamentary seats we won in 2000 and were of course seats we should have won. That, some may argue, is hardly stunning.

But I am elated and the events of the past few days are indeed highly significant. If one needed any confirmation of the significance of the results one only had to watch ZTV last night, as I did, to appreciate how crushing these results are to ZANU (PF). The results, some of them (!), were only announced, almost in passing, twenty minutes into the news bulletin. Believe you me had ZANU (PF) been happy with the results they would have been first up.

Why then is ZANU (PF) devastated and why are these results stunning? It is because:

1. The MDC has finally gained effective control of the urban areas.
Last Friday ZANU (PF) controlled every single municipality in the country save for Harare. Today they have woken up to the reality that the MDC now controls the municipalities of Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Mutare, Masvingo, Victoria Falls, Kariba, Gwanda, Ruwa and Hwange and shares power in Chegutu (where we still have an MDC mayor even if all our candidates were prevented from filling their nomination papers) and Zvishavane. In other words the MDC now controls the budgets and general operations of Zimbabwe’s five largest cities, its two premier tourist resorts and several strategically important towns. Some 40% of Zimbabwe’s population live in these centres which are now liberated from ZANU (PF)’s power and corruption. These same centres generate over 50% of our GDP. Whilst the MDC won Parliamentary seats in all these cities and towns in 2000 that never translated into control because MDC MPs have always been in a minority in Parliament and were powerless to prevent ZANU (PF) from passing laws and budgets to their liking. For the first time the MDC has gained almost total control over the areas it first won largely symbolically in 2000.

2. The MDC has in reality gained ground.
For all the focus in regime’s media (and to a certain extent on the SABC) on the MDC losing ground in Kwe Kwe and Kadoma the reality is far different. It is in fact ZANU (PF) that has lost ground. Kwe Kwe and Kadoma were only lost (narrowly at that in terms of votes cast) because of massive doses of violence and intimidation perpetrated by the regime. Let us not forget that the MDC MP for Kadoma, Austin Mupandawana, died only a few weeks ago, his death a direct result of his unlawful detention and torture by the regime in March, which severely undermined our capacity in that town. The election in Kwe Kwe was a total farce – even more so than the rest of the country. Our Kwe Kwe MP, Blessing Chebundo, had his car smashed by ZANU (PF) hooligans on the first day of the election, the voter turn out was way over the national average (suggesting that ZANU (PF) went to extra lengths to truck people in) and suspected MDC supporters were dragged out of voter queues by ZANU (PF) thugs. ZANU (PF) was only able to win in Chegutu and Bindura by violently preventing our candidates from even filling their nomination papers. In towns like Marondera and Norton they only won through overwhelmingly pervasive intimidation. In areas where ZANU (PF) leaders were complacent and took their eyes off the ball they lost ground. It is pertinent to remember that both Kariba and Zvishavane were won by ZANU (PF) MPs in the 2000 Parliamentary elections. Kariba is now controlled outright by the MDC and, horror of horrors, has a white MDC mayor! Zvishavane is now jointly controlled by the MDC and ZANU (PF) who won 5 seats each. The result in Kariba is particularly remarkable because it is in Mashonaland West Province which has been a no go area for the MDC since the 2002 presidential election.

3. The MDC won despite apathy.
Low voter turn out created by apathy traditionally favours ZANU (PF) because it is guaranteed of being able to get a hard core out to vote come what may. In this election ZANU (PF) used war veterans and youth militia to do its campaigning in Bulawayo and I suspect that the same was the case countrywide. These people who are paid all voted and guaranteed that ZANU (PF) would get a basic minimum percentage of the vote. The regime encouraged apathy – for example the location of polling stations was not advertised and very little effort was made to get out the vote. The elections were largely treated as a non event on radio and TV. In Bulawayo and, I think, other areas ZANU (PF) candidates did not hold campaign rallies. The focus of their campaigns was to go house by house and to concentrate on their known supporters rather than the general voting public. All of this was premised on the hope that only a few people would turn out to vote and that they would be able to win by default. This strategy was supplemented by two diametrically opposed attitudes I discerned in the voting public in Bulawayo which I suspect prevailed countrywide. The (negative) one was that there was simply no point in voting – people had voted for change in 2002 but ZANU (PF) had rigged and stolen the result and would just do the same again. The other (positive) one was that the MDC had won by such overwhelming margins in urban areas in the 2000 and 2002 elections that there was no need to vote especially when one had such difficulty in securing basic necessities such as cash, food and fuel. Added to that of course were the threats to withhold food which created a huge moral dilemma in the minds of most voters who were torn between voting in large numbers for the party of their choice and as a result possibly denying their children food. Given these obstacles it is astonishing that the MDC did as well as it did and whilst we clearly have work to do in getting people to turn out in greater numbers it is ZANU (PF) that has to confront the harsh reality that in a city the size of Bulawayo with over 800,000 inhabitants despite all the tactics they used, they can only rely on a total of some 9000 core supporters. The same applies in virtually every single city and town in the country.

4. The MDC won despite a totally subverted electoral process.
It is important to remember that as bad as the electoral process was in the 2000 Parliamentary elections the process was a cakewalk then compared to now. In 2000 we did not have the Public Order and Security Act, youth brigades, a subverted police force and judiciary, a thoroughly manipulated voters’ roll and food shortages. In 2000 we did have international observers, far more money to campaign with, and a relative absence of fear. Since the 2000 elections the MDC has been subjected to an unrelenting assault – virtually every single leader has been detained, many have faced spurious prosecutions and other forms of harassment. Hundreds of thousands of MDC supporters have been intimidated through killings, beatings, threats and denial of access to food. The party has been drained of resources through having to protect the thousands of its leaders and supporters who have had to be provided with medical care and legal representation. Thousands of Zimbabweans who voted for the MDC in 2000 have been disenfranchised through unconstitutional means. Thousands of “ghost” voters have been introduced to urban constituencies to supplement the votes ZANU (PF) receives. Whilst we were able to field candidates in every single constituency in 2000 we were unable to do so this year through the combination of ZANU (PF) thugs preventing candidates from getting their nomination papers in and partisan judges subverting the legal process brazenly in favour of ZANU (PF). In other words the regime has done everything in its power to crush the MDC and to subvert totally the electoral process in the last three years. Despite all of that the MDC now controls every major city and town in the country bar two!

It is for all of these reasons that yesterday’s results are truly amazing and why I thought Robert Browning’s words so apt. The regime has thrown everything at us. The regime has done unspeakable things to our friends and relatives – it has murdered, raped, tortured, assaulted, detained, spuriously prosecuted thousands of brave Zimbabweans but it has failed. We have indeed fallen only to rise; we have indeed slept only to wake.

I have but one final thought which is for those responsible for perpetrating all the horror that has befallen our beautiful nation. It comes from Edmund Burke who wrote the following words in 1775:
“The use of force alone is temporary. It may subdue for a moment: but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.”

Zimbabwe is only held by ZANU (PF) through force not by popular will of the people. These results demonstrate that force has only subdued the people of Zimbabwe for a moment. In reality ZANU (PF) no longer enjoys the respect and support of the people and as such no longer governs Zimbabwe. It enjoys a mere façade of support of people in rural areas but that is only because the regime is able to subdue rural people more easily.

The desire of Zimbabweans for liberty is a tidal wave that cannot be stopped. The events of this past weekend will soon swamp this brutal regime and force it to yield. Freedom is now just around the corner.

Makorokoto, Umhlope, Congratulations Zimbabwe!

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Mugabe’s new palace in a land of hunger

By David Coltart | Published August 27, 2003

The Daily Telegraph
27th August 2003
By Peta Thornycroft in Harare

Builders are putting the finishing touches to a retirement home for President Robert Mugabe that will rival the most extravagant of African leaders’ residences.

The project is the latest sign of how his regime is prospering while vast numbers of Zimbabweans are close to starvation. The World Food Programme estimates that 5.5 million people – almost half the population – will need hunger relief by the year’s end.
Several architects who have seen aerial pictures of Mr Mugabe’s new mansion, 16 miles north of Harare, say it looks as large as a medium-sized hotel.

Surveyors in Harare estimated the building cost about £3.75 million – a colossal sum in a country where factory workers can earn as little as £6 a month. Final costs, including landscaping, security and interior decoration are expected to push the bill close to £6 million.

Contractors are working feverishly on the fittings while two lakes built for Mr Mugabe on the southern boundary have begun to fill.
The residence offers more than three acres of accommodation, mostly on three floors, including two-storey reception rooms, an office suite, and up to 25 bedrooms with adjoining bathrooms and spas.

The Chinese-style roof is clad with midnight blue glazed tiles from Shanghai. The ceilings were decorated by Arab craftsmen.
Mr Mugabe’s mansion is more than three times the size of his present official residence and his offices at State House.

Its scale has raised opposition concerns that – if as is widely expected – Mr Mugabe steps down as leader of his ruling Zanu-PF at the annual congress in December, or maybe after his 80th birthday in February, real power will move from his official government offices to his new residence.

David Coltart, the justice spokesman for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, said: “It had always been assumed that Mugabe himself has not been corrupt. The size of this house would suggest otherwise and will further complicate the negotiation process as Mugabe seeks to secure a peaceful exit. He must explain to Zimbabweans where he got the money from to build such a mansion.”

Since coming to power 23 years ago – first as prime minister and then as executive president – Mr Mugabe has officially earned a total of less than US$1 million (about £625,000), including various allowances. Last month, he increased his annual salary by 1,000 per cent to the equivalent of £23,000.

Last year, when America and the European Union slapped sanctions on Mr Mugabe and more than 70 of his political cohorts, Washington also froze their assets. Mr Mugabe challenged investigators to find any personal stash abroad. “They will find nothing,” he said.

However, his new house is one of the most striking signs that he has spent massively more than he has earned. A mile away from the new mansion is that other architectural testament to Mr Mugabe’s rule, the brick house -dubbed Gracelands – which his second wife Grace built using a government building fund set up to assist lowly paid civil servants.

That house appears unoccupied. After exposure in the media, Mrs Mugabe sold it, and it ended up in the hands of Libyan diplomats – among the last international backers of the regime. But they have not moved in.

It is dwarfed by her husband’s retirement home across the valley. Set in 44 acres of heavily wooded land, the property is made up of three separate title deeds – the first two bought in 1987 by the M & S Syndicate Ltd, set up seven years earlier.

This week, staff at the Registrar of Companies in Harare said records of M & S Syndicate were not available, but gave names of directors, including the speaker of parliament, Emmerson Mnangagwa, who is tipped to succeed Mr Mugabe as president of Zanu-PF, and the defence minister Sydney Sekeramayi.

The third tranche of property was bought three years ago from a farmer who, friends say, was forced to sell because Mr Mugabe wanted to extend the land-holding.

When he finally retires as president, he will continue to receive his full presidential salary which is nowhere near enough to maintain the costs of his retirement mansion.

At present, the cost of protecting the property is borne by Zimbabwe’s taxpayers. At least four uniformed police officers patrol the perimeter 24 hours a day.

Security agents from the Central Intelligence Organisation are on hand to apprehend inquisitive drivers or bird-watchers who stop near the fence.

The mansion was built by a former Yugoslavian company, Energoproject, which has had close links with Mr Mugabe.
The present site manager, Alexandre Illic, said last week that the building had been completed about a month ago. He said he reported to the ministry of mines and that Mr Mugabe recently visited the site while he was there.

Sources in the building industry say landscaping and interior decoration – supervised by Mrs Mugabe, renowned for her expensive tastes – will be carried out by South Africans.

The Telegraph faxed questions to Mr Mugabe’s Harare office, asking how the residence was paid for, but received no reply.
Brian Raftopoulos, professor of development studies at the University of Zimbabwe, said: “Details of his new home are an indicator that the issue of retirement is on the agenda. He will never let go of power. His influence on government will be different, but will remain.

“One of the issues for the transition is his role in retirement and his continued influence on all sectors.
“The size of his house indicates that he feels his presence needs to be symbolised by this massive outlay of resources for his retirement.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Report-Back Meeting By The Hon. David Coltart M.P. On 27 June, 2003 (Up-Dated 12 August 2003)

By David Coltart | Published June 27, 2003

Mr Coltart said that it was a reflection of the state of our “democracy” that the last report-back meeting scheduled to be held in Barham Green had been banned. Two other meetings: one a Christian meeting and the other to be hosted by Bulawayo Dialogue had both been similarly banned. The last six months had seen deterioration in the Zimbabwean environment in many different ways. People across the board had been affected and the level of gloom and depression was unprecedented. Inflation had reached 300%; there continued to be a dramatic emigration of skills and a variety of institutions were under great threat. Where such high levels of repression existed, it was inevitable that everyone was depressed. When people awakened in the morning, they immediately had to confront these enormous strains in their lives.

Ironically, this stressful situation had been further unintentionally compounded by the actions of the MDC, who had wrongly raised expectations. Some of the language relating to the mass action had been deliberately positive … it had been referred to as the “final push”. Telling people to turn out in their millions had created expectations that a dramatic miracle would occur in the space of five days, which was hoped for but which did not materialise. Mr Coltart had felt that the stay-away would be a success, but had experienced reservations about the prospect of thousands of people turning out to confront the regime. The regime was vicious and levels of fear intense. What had happened in June should rather be described as the beginning of the final push.

The stay-away in March had been a gamble. Fortunately, people had responded and had sent out a powerful message internationally. This had emboldened Zimbabweans. A five day stay-away (such as that that took place from 2nd to 6th June) was a very long time, and no civic or political organisation had succeeded before in doing this in Africa. It had been a huge gamble asking people to stay away in their thousands. Wealthy people and the middle class had been able to cope, but poor people without fridges and without stocks of food had struggled. The Wednesday morning of the stay-away had been the real test. At first it seemed to be waning, but then it strengthened by the end of the week. Expectations had also been raised about people turning out in their thousands and hundreds of thousands to protest, but state repression prevented that.

There had been increased levels of brutality; increased levels of torture and an increase in the number of people being detained: signs that the regime was redoubling its efforts to oppress the Zimbabwean people. In the 1930’s Dietrich Bonhoffer had opposed the Nazis and Hitler. He had been detained in the early 1940’s in Berlin. Two weeks prior to the collapse of Nazi Germany, far from releasing him, they had taken him to a concentration camp and had shot him. This was one example of a tyrannical regime that got more vicious the closer it got to its demise. One would expect such a regime to decrease its human rights abuses as it came closer to its end. Increased oppression, however, was a desperate move to quell the opposition. Ironically, we should feel encouraged by this. The shortage of bank notes, the lack of fuel and the increase of human rights abuses were all signs of a regime on its last legs.

The reality was that ZANU PF was weaker and the opposition stronger. The lowest ebb of the MDC was reached in January this year. Zimbabwe had disappeared completely from the international radar screen. Mr Coltart had been staggered by the arrogance displayed by ZANU PF during December 2002. They were confident that the MDC would lose both Harare by-elections: those in Kuwadzana and Highfield, and that they would be able to crush the MDC.

In December, the NCA had called for stay-aways, which had been a total flop.

But, from the beginning of February 2003, things had changed dramatically.

Ironically, two events that ZANU PF had thought to capitalise on had had the opposite effect. The first was the treason trial, and the second was the World Cup Cricket. The intention of ZANU PF was to use the treason trial to put the MDC on the back foot. They intended to show the world that Morgan Tsvangirai was involved in some nefarious activity. They had seen the treason trial as something to relish – an opportunity to get the focus back on the characters of Morgan Tsvangirai and Welshman Ncube. This was precisely what had happened, but not in the way they had anticipated. From the dock, Morgan Tsvangirai had been able to shut down the country twice. Having George Bisos to represent Morgan Tsvangirai and the others accused of treason had been a masterstroke, as constant linkage was made between Nelson Mandela’s trial and this one. Mr Bisos was a fine advocate, who exposed evidence that relied on the testimony of a scoundrel. The trial did not show ZANU PF in a good light especially in the minds of South Africans, but most importantly, it drew international attention back to Zimbabwe.

With regard to the World Cup Cricket, Mr Coltart had found himself at the time in a moral dilemma. It had been clear that the morally correct stance was for countries to decline to come to Zimbabwe. Yet, it was anticipated that, if national teams came, the world’s attention would be focused on Zimbabwe, and the country and the situation here would merit a couple of useful days’ coverage. As it happened, the benefit derived from the teams coming here was immense. The World Cup, in a powerful way, focused the world’s attention on Zimbabwe, and won us a powerful ally in the Caribbean block. It was Henry Olonga’s statement and his subsequent treatment that led to their allying themselves with Jim McKinnon’s successful attempt to extend Zimbabwe’s suspension from the Council of Ministers in the Commonwealth. Huge benefit was derived from ZANU PF’s treatment of a sporting icon. Thus, in February, the world’s focus was back on Zimbabwe.

In March and April, Zimbabweans needed to demonstrate to the international community that they were not happy. While the international community was deeply sympathetic, it was hamstrung in a variety of international fora, needing tangible evidence of the people’s dissatisfaction. The stay-away in March changed its attitude.

It had become clear that people were not acting in good faith, and that certain leaders in Africa were paying lip service to calls for justice in Zimbabwe and trying to ignore the MDC. After the stay-away, they could no longer do this. The stay-away led to the extension of the Commonwealth ban. The MDC went on to confound its critics and the prophets of doom by winning the two Harare by-elections. Mr Coltart had not expected the MDC to win these – because of massive electoral fraud.

The significant event in March was the Iraq war, an event of short duration. At the commencement of the war, both sides in Zimbabwe gambled. ZANU PF nailed its colours to the mast early on in the proceedings. Jonathon Moyo indicated publicly that the ZANU regime was against what was happening. Mr Coltart reminded us of the way the Zimbabwean soldier, who died in Iraq, was treated by the regime.

In contrast, Morgan Tsvangirai, on the day after the war started, when addressing diplomats at a meeting, thanked the United States for promoting democracy in his country for the last few decades. In the early days of the war America was very isolated. We had nailed our colours to the right mast. This was the right and principled thing to do. It was necessary to rid the world of dictators and terrorism. Colin Powell telephoned Morgan Tsvangirai in acknowledgement of the friendly statement made by him in a time of need. This regime did not understand just how deep the wound created by the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was. The stand taken by ZANU PF was noted by the American administration and would bode ill for them. If one was seen to support the American government, as had been the case with the MDC, then enormous benefits would flow. Long term ramifications would be evident.

In May, the first effects of the stay-away were seen in the reactions of Presidents Obasanjo, Mbeki and Maluzi. President Mbeki met Morgan Tsvangirai for the first time. These leaders stated that they wanted to meet someone who was on trial for allegedly wanting to assassinate a fellow “President”. Their action undermined the entire treason trial. This would never have happened, but for the May stay-away and the two by-elections which forced Mbeki’s hand. For all the support that the anti-apartheid movement achieved, they never closed down a single city in South Africa and Mbeki simply could not ignore the MDC’s power.

The stay-away resulted in a knee-jerk reaction from the regime. Instead of trying to ignore it, they arrested Morgan Tsvangirai at the beginning of the week, just before the G8 Conference was to take place. Then at the end of the week on Friday, the last day of the five-day stay-away, they detained him again. Their action once again focused media attention on Zimbabwe.

Everyone was desperately concerned for him and about his treatment in prison. The reality of the situation, however, was that his detention had raised his profile and stature. This was especially so in Zimbabwe. He had been unfairly criticised for not leading the mass action more vigorously. The attitude of the people changed to one of sympathy, as they realised that the road to State House went through prison.

In June Colin Powell wrote an article in “The New York Times” likening Morgan Tsvangirai to Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition in Burma and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr Powell’s article was one of the most significant pieces of writing concerning Zimbabwe to come out since the struggle. “The New York Times” sets the benchmark of American opinion. Attention would thus be focused on Zimbabwe, just before President Bush embarked on his first trip to Africa. President Mbeki had staked his reputation on NEPAD and hoped that billions of US$ flowing into Africa would boost his domestic standing.

From the low point in January, a progression of events had led us to a situation where the regime in Zimbabwe was in reactive rather than in proactive mode. “The Chronicle” of Monday 23 June featured a collage of photographs of Mr Mugabe’s rally in Kezi. Behind him on the dais was a huge sign that said “No to Mass Action – Enough is Enough”. A political party needed to focus on its own message. In the last few months, ZANU PF had been drawn into our territory and was re-acting to our policies as in their “No to Mass Action”. Their message was no longer “Down with the Whites” and “Land for the People”. Marketers’ skill lay in creating concepts and slogans that were easily remembered. Thus the coverage that the MDC was getting in “The Chronicle” and “The Herald” was incredible. The MDC’s name was being mentioned all the time. One should not raise the profile of the enemy, a trap ZANU PF had fallen into. The MDC was setting the agenda. It had shut down the country and had been responsible for bringing out the airforce. On the Saturday morning (after the stay-away ended at 5pm on the Friday), the helicopters went back to their bases. The power to call out helicopters and to keep them at base thus lay with Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC.

Admittedly, Mugabe did control the military, but he did not control the people. The following were two examples of the way ZANU PF was trying to control the situation:

  1. They had embarked on a series of campaign meetings, an indication that they were feeling jittery. They were looking for encouragement, so shaken were they by the success of the stay-away. Threats of closure of businesses had not worked. People had been bussed to the meeting at Kezi – they had been forced to attend the meeting. Their mood had been one of silent dissatisfaction.
  2. Nathan Shamuyarira had announced that he was going to discuss a Government of National Unity. This was a positive development, as it was the first sign of major weakness, very different from their attitude in December. Whilst the MDC would never participate in a Government of National Unity it was a sign that ZANU PF was now forced to deal with the MDC.

Mr Mugabe had flown to Libya to try to source fuel. He would not be able to resolve the economic fundamentals, even if he succeeded in the short term.

The economic situation was unsustainable. It was inevitable that if the productive sector was interfered with and productivity stopped and if the flow of foreign exchange was brought to a halt, the economy would collapse. Inflation would continue to rise and bank notes would become even more scarce. Only through this economic trial would this regime be brought to its knees.

What was the way ahead? Mr Coltart said that we were close to the end of the nightmare. Economic collapse was speeding up and international pressure was building. This would lead to the collapse of the regime and to a restoration of democracy, the ultimate solution to our problems.

There had to be a transitional authority. The best solution would be for Mr Mugabe to resign and for a new election to be held in 90 days. The bottom line was for a transitional authority to have a finite term of office and a limited mandate. There must not be a Government of National Unity.

Under a transitional authority, Zimbabwe could not be governed in terms of POSA and other such restrictive laws. Humanitarian relief must be allowed into the country. Early signs of serious malnutrition were being seen in children in some rural areas. While some areas had surplus crops, experts agreed that there was, overall, a massive food deficit. Because the regime was living a lie, it had not taken the measures it needed to take in terms of humanitarian aid. Our contact with the rest of the world must be restored. The electoral playing field must be levelled, so that a free and fair election could take place.

America had called for exactly the same conditions as those mentioned above: Robert Mugabe’s resignation, transitional authority and new elections. The United States had the power to call on African leaders to help to resolve the crisis.

Prior to 1976, Ian Smith was talking of “Never in a Thousand Years….”. But after a meeting with Kissinger in Pretoria, he was forced to return speaking of majority rule. Huge pressure had been brought to bear. This was a typical example of the pressure and power the US is able to exert with regard to the Zimbabwean impasse. This pressure will result in a solution to the crisis.

Mr Coltart said that we must remain true to our principles, the two most important being non-violence and the determination to go through the courts, even though they had been subverted. He said that if we had moved into Robert Mugabe’s territory of violence, we would have been removed long ago. He said that we had all been put to the test. Fifty-two of the fifty-seven MP’s elected had been subjected either to detention, torture, oppression or imprisonment. Despite this, the core of the MDC had remained intact. Whilst in Zimbabwe, we were all hanging by a thread, we needed to go the final lap in our goal of bringing democracy to this country.

p-Dated After A Further Meeting On 7 August 2003

Since its formation on 11 September 2003, the MDC had been subjected to a baptism of fire: an unrelenting and vicious assault by ZANU PF, who had tortured, abducted, kidnapped and murdered its members. Almost four years on, the MDC was not crushed; in fact the core of the party was stronger than ever. Council elections were to be held in Bulawayo at the end of August. The MDC was in control of the cities in Zimbabwe, where 30/40% of the population was to be found. The cities generated over half the GDP in the country, and therefore were an important power base. There was great danger, however, that in the current climate of economic collapse, depression and apathy would prevail, a situation that would adversely affect voter turn-out. (Urban councils the world over were blighted by voter apathy.) ZANU PF would be delighted if there was a poor turn-out. They must not be allowed to win by default.

Mr Coltart reminded the meeting that Martin Luther King had said “Freedom never comes without some form of sacrifice”. Zimbabweans had never known true representative democracy. Bulawayo’s elections were yet another step towards this goal. The development of democracy was an incremental process.

Question Time

The MDC would not enter into a Government of National Unity. After what happened to ZAPU in the 1980’s such a government was against the national interest. ZANU PF was responsible for the absence of fuel, food and money. They had created all the problems we were facing today. The MDC would not be prepared to go down that route and be swallowed, as ZAPU was, only to have its bones spat out and its leadership corrupted. The Matabeleland Zambezi Water Project was a pipe dream. Not two sods of earth had been turned at the confluence of the Gwaai and the Zambezi. Yet for ten or twelve years the subject had been talked of constantly and numerous promises had been made. Nothing had happened. Significantly, only a small percentage of the students at NUST, our University in Bulawayo, came from this region.

The MDC envisaged a Transitional Authority – a Government of National Unity would simply be a continuation of ZANU PF. A Transitional Authority (not a Government) had a limited mandate and would exist for a finite period, during which it would govern the country. It would be a mandate to take the country through to free and fair elections. It was imperative that the country be stabilised, law and order restored, the police force de-politicised, the youth militia disbanded and the way paved towards adhering to the SADC standards for free and fair elections.

With regard to the meeting between Presidents Bush and Mbeki in South Africa in July, ZANU PF had spewed out a lot of propaganda and lies. Mr Coltart had been in South Africa at the time and had had two meetings with the Bush administration team. Two very clear agreements had emerged from the Press Conference given by the two presidents. Both men acknowledged that the Zimbabwean crisis required urgent resolution. Both stated that they shared the same objectives. President Bush had certainly not changed his objectives. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had clearly set out how the crisis needed to be resolved. Mugabe needed to stand down, there should be a transitional authority and free and fair elections needed to be held. Bush repeated these conditions in Botswana. President Mbeki had never said what his objective was. He had spoken of “quiet diplomacy”, but had never offered a “road map”. In essence, free and fair elections in the country were needed to resolve the crisis. President Bush had said that he was not going to second-guess President Mbeki, but had referred to him as “my point-man”. This term was a reference to American football and to an active not a passive role. He meant you are the person in the region, and you must run with this. Bush had said that he believed that President Mbeki could be an honest broker not that he was an honest broker. They would be reviewing the situation in September. Bush had, in fact, secured two key concessions. We could expect to see close co-operation.

ZANU PF was desperate for the MDC to recognise the legitimacy of Robert Mugabe as President of Zimbabwe. The MDC had said that IF the International Community endorsed talks and they got underway and IF there was tangible evidence of ZANU PF’s demonstrating good faith, then the MDC would consider suspending the Presidential Challenge. The trial was due to start only in November, so this gave interested parties a three-month window. The Presidential Challenge was the best non-violent, lawful leverage the MDC had, and so it would not be discarded lightly.

Contracts entered into by ZANU PF that were not considered to be in the best interests of the country would not be honoured by the MDC. The MDC had built a huge body of evidence that clearly demonstrated how the election was stolen from us. The aim for the future was for Zimbabwe to have a government that represented the majority of the people and not a tiny, rich, corrupt elite.

ZANU PF was engaged in a vigorous process to elect a new leader. It had been claimed that Robert Mugabe would stand down from his party position in December. It should be noted, however, that this was different from standing down as president. The South Africans, the MDC understood, wanted an election in Zimbabwe as early as March, not June, since the ANC had to fight an election themselves in June. The MDC would fight an election only if the electoral process conformed to SADC and international standards.

It was interesting that President Mbeki’s concluding remark was to thank President Bush for agreeing to invest in Zimbabwe’s “transitional’ current crisis ie rehabilitation.

No investor would invest in Zimbabwe until we restored our judiciary.

Posted in Parliamentary, Speeches | Leave a comment

Mugabe ‘cannot pay his security forces’

By David Coltart | Published June 15, 2003

The Daily Telegraph
15th June 2003
By David Harrison in Harare

Zimbabwe’s security forces, the front-line enforcers of President Robert Mugabe’s brutal regime, are being paid only a fraction of their salaries as the country’s economic crisis deepens.

Many soldiers and police officers, whose loyalty has traditionally been bought with high pay and other perks, are receiving less than half of their wages because there is not enough money in the Treasury coffers, according to serving police officers.

The pay cuts are threatening to undermine the forces’ morale and, crucially, their loyalty to Mr Mugabe. Opponents say that Mr Mugabe continues in power only because critics of the regime risk violence, jail and death at the hands of his ruthless state security forces, including the feared Central Intelligence Organisation.

Last week, with the help of an intermediary, The Telegraph met two policemen in the capital, Harare, who were prepared to speak out, on condition of anonymity.

One officer, in his mid-thirties, said: “Recently I have been paid only a small part of my salary and it is making life very difficult. I have a wife and children. How am I supposed to feed them if am not being paid properly?”

The other, a slightly older man, said: “If you were in the security forces you always knew that you would be rewarded well because you were protecting the regime. But that is not happening now and many police officers are suffering, and soldiers too. It makes us wonder why we do it.”

The Government denied that security officers were not receiving their full salaries and said that all civil servants would receive pay rises from July 1. The police officers were adamant, however, that they were not being paid in full and said that the cuts were causing “deep resentment”.

Members of the ruling Zanu-PF’s 40,000-strong youth militia threatened to revolt last year because they had not been paid, but a rebellion by experienced security officers would pose a serious threat to Mr Mugabe’s rule – and possibly his life.

The pay cuts will hit particularly hard because they come at a time when prices in the shops are soaring – Zimbabwe’s inflation is just under 300 per cent – and there are serious shortages of basic foods, petrol and medicines in the worst economic crisis since independence from Britain was won in 1980.

David Coltart, an MP for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said that if Mr Mugabe was unable to pay the police and army it would be “a devastating blow” to the regime. “Without the military, Mugabe is nothing,” he said.

One Zimbabwean opposition MP said that Mr Mugabe would “simply print millions of banknotes” to pay his security forces, even though this would send inflation soaring even higher. There is an another problem: the collapse of the Zimbabwe dollar means that it now costs 700 dollars (50p) to produce a note for 500 (36p).

The banknotes are printed by a government-owned company in Harare. Last week, it was frantically churning out notes to meet increased demand because of inflation and last week’s strikes. The $500 note – Zimbabwe’s highest denomination note, which was worth £500 just after independence in 1980 – is now not enough to buy a bottle of beer.

Protesters said they were very concerned about the arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC who called last week’s protests as a “final push” against Mr Mugabe.

Mr Tsvangirai, 51, is in custody on charges of treason for plotting to use illegal means to overthrow the government. His lawyer, George Bizos, who represented Nelson Mandela in his treason trial 40 years ago, said: “By keeping political opponents silent, the country’s difficulties will not be solved.”

Last week, Mr Mugabe threatened to expel Brian Donnelly, the British High Commissioner in Harare, for “interfering in Zimbabwe’s affairs by helping the MDC to organise its demonstrations”. A spokesman for Mr Donnelly denied any role in organising the protests. Western diplomats saw the warning as Mr Mugabe’s latest attempt to blame his troubles on the former colonial power.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Coltart, David; Bulawayo South Candidate 2000

By David Coltart | Published May 1, 2003

Inter-parliamentary Union

In May 2000 when Mr. Coltart attempted to register his candidacy for the MDC party, the Registrar General attempted to bar his nomination claiming he was a British citizen and therefore, ineligible to be nominated. Mr. Coltart was required to prove he was not a British citizen and was a Zimbabwean citizen.

In June 2000, approximately 1 week before the election, Mr. Coltart was warned that his home would be burned. This did not occur. At the same time ten of Mr. Coltart’s polling agents were held and detained illegally for 24 hours by War Veterans where they were lectured and threatened for supporting the MDC party.

On June 19, 2000 at 5:00 p.m., in the presence of his wife and children, 5 War Veterans abducted Patrick Nabanyama, one of Mr. Coltart’s polling agents. A report was made to police. Mr. Nabanyama has never been seen again and is feared dead.

In August 2000, Mr. Coltart was responsible for filing legal papers in Mr. Tsvgangirai’s, President of the MDC Party, impeachment trial. President Mugabe responded publicly on television by attacking Mr. Coltart personally and stating that there was no place for Mr. Coltart in Zimbabwe.

On October 4, 2000 approximately 14-armed ZRP and CIO officers raided Mr. Coltart’s home. Mr. Coltart’s sons (aged 8 and 10) were the only ones home. They were threatened. When Mr. Coltart’s wife arrived home, she managed to keep them out of the home until Mr. Coltart arrived. Upon arrival, the officers showed Mr. Coltart a warrant, illegal obtained, which permitted a search of his home for broadcasting equipment, aircraft, boats, and safes. The home was searched and nothing was found.

On November 5, 2001 Ken Nkala, the Chairman of the War Veterans Association, was abducted. Mr. Coltart was in New York City at this time and when he returned on November 11, 2001, the ZRP stated on television that they believed a white legislator was behind Nkala’s disappearance. They accused Mr. Coltart and promised retribution.

On November 12, 2001, Mr. Coltart’s close friend and former Campaign Manager Simon Spooner, was arrested and accused of being involved with Nkala’s disappearance. Mr. Spooner was held in solitary confinement for 5 weeks in deplorable conditions. On November 13, 2001 Mr. Nkala’s body was found in a shallow grave. Mr. Spooner was never charged and completely denies any involvement in Mr. Nkala’s disappearance or death. Mr. Coltart and Mr. Spooner state that they are intentionally targeted and intimidated because they are well known in Zimbabwe and are outspokenly critical of the ZANU-PF government.

On November 14, 2001 Mr. Coltart attempted to return to Bulawayo from a Parliamentary session in Harare, when soon after his plane left Harare it was ordered by the ZRP and CIO to return. Once landed back in Harare, the plane was surrounded by three truckloads of armed ZRP and CIO officers. When Mr. Coltart exited the plane he was told he was under investigation and was held for 2 hours. They would not tell Mr. Coltart what he was under investigation for. Once released Mr. Coltart arranged to drive back to Bulawayo. On his way Mr. Coltart received information that hundreds of ZRP officers, armed with petrol, were on their way to his home in Bulawayo. He telephoned his wife and had her gather their children and they fled the home. The ZRP was diverted and did not attend at Mr. Coltart’s home that night. As a result of the harassment by the ZRP, CIO, and ZANU-PF supporters towards Mr. Coltart and his family, the citizens of Bulawayo spontaneously responded – in support of Mr. Coltart – by burning down a ZRP bus.

On February 16, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Coltart and his family left their home to collect their eldest daughter at a friend’s birthday party. Mr. Coltart was advised there were members of the Youth Brigade in the neighbourhood destroying vehicles. Mr. Coltart saw approximately 60 youths in the neighbourhood and decided to take an alternate route to the birthday party. They collected their daughter and proceeded to return home, when they realized that both roads leading to their home were barricaded by approximately 100 youths. Mr. Coltart turned around and reported this to the ZRP, which he later describes as a bad decision. He was fearful for his family’s safety. Mr. Coltart drove his family to a friend’s home and returned with one of his friends. The youth dispersed and Mr. Coltart re-collected his family and returned home.

At 7:30 p.m. that evening, one truckload of ZRP officers arrived at Mr. Coltart’s home stating they were responding to a report. The officers then left without further questions or investigation.

At 8:15 p.m. that evening three truckloads of armed police and CIO officers arrived at Mr. Coltart’s home in a very threatening manner. They alleged that he shot at a youth. Mr. Coltart denied the allegations and asked what the specific circumstances of the allegations were, to which the officers would not respond. The officers wanted to search the home and Mr. Coltart refused claiming they had no warrant. The officers left and stated they would be returning to get him.

He immediately collected his family and went into hiding. The officers returned the following days only to find Mr. Coltart not there. On Monday, Mr. Coltart, along with his lawyer, went to the police station, where he was detained and charged with discharging a firearm in a public place. Mr. Coltart does not own a firearm. He was then driven in a police buggy through the centre of Bulawayo in a form of public humiliation while the police searched his home. Nothing was found.

Mr. Coltart was taken to Court that afternoon and the prosecution wanted Mr. Coltart to surrender his travel documents. He was released on cash bail. The case was remanded over to numerous court appearances. The prosecution eventually stayed the charges in June 2003 following a direction by a Magistrate that the trial must proceed forthwith.

In April 2002, the MDC party received credible information that a plan was being orchestrated to assassinate Mr. Coltart.

In August 2002, President Mugabe addressed the country on television and stated, “the likes of the Bennett’s and Coltart’s don’t belong here and if they choose to remain they shall be in prison”.

In November 2002, Mr. Coltart discovered that his vehicle’s brake line was cut, resulting in the vehicle having no brakes.

On March 3, 2003, Mr. Coltart discovered that the inside rear left tire of his vehicle had been burned to the point that driving on it would have resulted in a tire explosion and accident.

On March 15, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Coltart, along with his 9-year-old son and 18-month-old daughter, left their home to drive to a children’s sports day. As he left the driveway he noticed another vehicle parked a few yards away with three men inside and what looked to be a weapon. Mr. Coltart became suspicious and waited until the vehicle left the area. When Mr. Coltart approached a nearby intersection, he noticed the vehicle was behind him. He took an alternate route and sped up, only to see that this vehicle was following him closely at high speeds. Mr. Coltart telephoned his security team immediately. They arranged to have Mr. Coltart drive pass a church parking lot near a friend’s home. When he passed the church his security team entered the road and blocked the pursuing vehicle. Mr. Coltart drove to the friend’s home, passed and entered their security gate. Mr. Coltart’s security team organized others to attend at the home and soon after they arrived, the vehicle in that was in pursuit eventually left the area. As a result of this incident Mr. Coltart went into hiding for 2 weeks.

Posted in Biographical, Parliamentary | 1 Comment

The full story of what is going on in Zimbabwe

By David Coltart | Published February 1, 2003

Allister Sparks

The original plan to bowler-hat Mugabe and put Emmerson Mnangagwa in charge of Zimbabwe has been stymied because the opposition MDC won’t play ball as the ANC wanted, but the plan may now be implemented unilaterally with the Commercial Farmers Union in the token partnership role

The first indication that Robert Mugabe might soon cease to be Executive President of Zimbabwe came last November when a Catholic priest, Fr Fidelis Mukonori, who is close to Mugabe, called on the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai, to say the President wanted to meet with him outside the country. The priest hinted that Mugabe was thinking of retiring.

In the event, nothing came of this, but a few weeks later a former Rhodesian army officer now living in South Africa contacted Tsvangirai, whom he knew, to say that Colonel Lionel Dycke, a former colleague who had stayed on to serve in the Zimbabwe army where he gained the confidence of the ruling ZANU-PF party, wished to meet with the MDC leader. Soon afterwards Dycke turned up at Tsvangirai’s Harare home accompanied by the ex-Rhodesian. So began a series of proximity talks that have brought the Zimbabwean crisis to a watershed point.

Just what prompted Dycke to play the role of political intermediary is not quite clear. Dycke himself has gone to ground and failed to return my calls during a week of investigation into events in Zimbabwe. But before he did so he told journalists in Harare that as a concerned citizen – he is also a wealthy businessman who specialises in the removal of landmines world-wide – he wanted to try to bring about a settlement that would stop Zimbabwe’s catastrophic economic meltdown.

Four months of secret talks

To that end he had gone to see his old commanding officer, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Force. Zvinavashe in turn put him in touch with Emmerson Mnangagwa, Speaker of the Zimbabwe Parliament, ZANU-PF’s chief of administration and the man reputed to be Mugabe’s chosen successor. Mnangagwa goes by a Shona nickname which means “The Son of God.”

But according to Tsvangirai, Dycke gave him a slightly different story, saying he had been approached by an officer of the British intelligence service, MI-6. who urged him to talk to Gen Zvinavashe because MI-6’s assessment was that the military was the only institution with power in Zimbabwe.

At all events, when Dycke met Zvinavashe and Mnangagwa – both members of the ZANU-PF Politburo who together form the most powerful duo in Zimbabwe – he found they were concerned about the worsening situation in Zimbabwe. According to sources who spoke to him recently, Dycke said he had met periodically with Zvinavashe and Mnangagwa over a period of four months before he offered to put them in touch with Tsvangirai.

When they agreed, he contacted his former Rhodesian army colleague who knew Tsvangirai, and so the meeting took place.

According to Tsvangirai, Dycke told him that Mugabe had agreed to retire but in doing so said nothing about holding elections.

The MDC position

Tsvangirai therefore handed him a policy document which spelled out the MDC’s standpoint on a political transition. The document stresses that the MDC considers the March 2001 presidential election to have been rigged (as did most international observer teams) and therefore regards the present government as illegitimate.

“All our troubles emanate from that,” says Tsvangirai. “The only solution is to restore legitimacy. That is where Mugabe is the stumbling block. He must go. I told Dycke that if Mugabe went we would be prepared to co-operate in finding a solution. There would have to be some form of bridging mechanism to re-establish national confidence.”

The document states that there should be a Transitional National Council made up of ZANU-PF and MDC members. The Transitional Council would have four tasks:

  • It would be a caretaker government for 6 to 18 months, preparing the ground for a new election.
  • It would institute an economic recovery programme.
  • It would draft a new Constitution.
  • It would establish a Land Commission to repair the damage caused by Mugabe’s disastrous land redistribution programme, aimed at gaining international support so that displaced white farmers can be paid compensation and support systems put in place for newly settled black farmers.

Amnesty for Mugabe

Tsvangirai says he also told Dycke that if Mugabe retired, the MDC would be prepared to agree to grant him immunity from prosecution for human rights abuses. In addition to acts of violence against the MDC during and after last year’s presidential election, Mugabe has been accused of ordering a massive crackdown on Joshua Nkomo’s opposition ZAPU party in Matabeleland in 1983 during which an estimated 20,000 people were killed.

The meeting with Dycke took place over a weekend in late November. “On the Monday,” says Tsvangirai, “Dycke phoned me saying his guys were very excited about my proposals. He said they would come back to me.”

But Tsvangirai grew suspicious. “We did an analysis ourselves about what this all meant,” he told me. “We realised that Mnangagwa was trying to position himself to take over power with the assistance of the military, but he wanted to do it in a way that would be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the British and the South Africans.

“We were concerned that the succession debate within ZANU-PF was over, and we didn’t know whether Mugabe was part of it or not. If he was not part of the deal it would mean nothing.

“I smelt a rat,” he added.

Mnangagwa ‘unacceptable’

Tsvangirai says two other things troubled the MDC. Firstly they felt Mnangagwa was pushing himself to become President, and they regarded him as unacceptable. As a former chief of intelligence they believe he has committed human rights violations, and Mnangagwa has also been named by a United Nations investigative team as ZANU-PF’s key agent in looting diamonds out of the Congo during Zimbabwe’s military involvement in that country’s civil war.

MDC leaders also point to the fact that Mnangagwa lost the safe ZANU-PF seat of Kwekwe to a little known MDC candidate in the 2000 parliamentary elections as evidence of his unpopularity among the people of Zimbabwe. Mnangagwa was subsequently rescued by Mugabe, who nominated him as Speaker of Parliament.

A second concern, says Tsvangirai, is that “we don’t want the military to be part of this solution. If they do become part of it, at what point do you get them out again?”

Another set of secret talks

The MDC’s more cautionary reaction may have been further influenced by a second set of proximity talks which took place almost simultaneously in Johannesburg

On Friday December 6, David Coltart, an MDC MP and the party’s specialist on legal and constitutional affairs, received a call from a prominent South African businessman with close links to the ANC asking him to fly to Johannesburg the next day to meet with the ANC. Coltart did so, and on Sunday December 8 the businessman introduced him to Patrick Moseke, an obscure figure who described himself as an ANC MP and a member of the party’s Political Education Department.

Moseke told Coltart that Mnangagwa had led a delegation of ZANU-PF members to South Africa the previous week for talks with the Mbeki government, and asked Coltart to spell out the MDC’s position on the Zimbabwe crisis. Coltart did so, essentially along the same lines as Tsvangirai had to Dycke, giving him the same MDC policy document and stressing that the MDC was basically pragmatic, but stressing that its bottom line was that Mugabe had to resign and there had to be a jointly-run Transitional Authority to prepare the way for an internationally supervised election.

Coltart told Moseke that he thought an appropriate composition for the Transitional Authority should reflect the results of the 2000 parliamentary elections, which would give ZANU-PF 51% and the MDC 49% of the members. But he stresses that this was a personal not an official MDC proposal.

At the same meeting Moseke showed Coltart a document analysing the situation in Zimbabwe that he said had been drafted earlier by a group of ANC parliamentarians, aided by someone from the intelligence services. Moseke said the document had been given to President Thabo Mbeki who had embraced its recommendations.

Coltart says he found the analysis of Zimbabwe’s economic crisis and its causes comprehensive and perceptive, but its recommendations made no reference to elections and a transition to democracy. Instead it referred to the need for “a leadership succession plan.” At the same time the document dismissed the MDC as a rudderless party lacking in both policies and unity.

A ‘sanitising’ ploy

The impression this gave the MDC was that the ANC was not looking to new elections to produce a legitimate government as the solution to the Zimbabwe crisis, but rather a strategy to bring about a new leadership of ZANU-PF as the governing party.

This prompted the suspicion among the MDC leaders that there was an attempt to draw them into a process intended to “sanitise” the ZANU-PF regime in which they would be powerless token partners. It looked like a fatal course for them to follow, for they would surely be rejected by their own angry constituents who want political change.

This was also the source of growing anger at the Mbeki government, which the MDC is now openly accusing of being a “dishonest broker” committed to keeping ZANU-PF in power.

Mnangagwa’s response

Moseke met again with Coltart on Monday December 9, saying he had spent the previous evening conveying the MDC’s position to the Mnangagwa delegation which was staying in another Johannesburg hotel. The feedback, he said, was that ZANU-PF did not want an early election because they did not yet have a leadership plan in place and they would want to consolidate a new leadership before going to the electorate.

Because of that Mugabe would have to remain President and see out his five-year term. However they recognised that, because of international pressure and the disapproval directed towards Mugabe himself, they would have to get a new leader. Therefore Mugabe would remain as a ceremonial President, either by amending the constitution (which would required the MDC’s support in Parliament) or by doing it voluntarily.

Under the present constitution Mugabe could simply withdraw from exercising his executive powers and delegate them to Mnangagwa whom he could name as Prime Minister. That would, of course, be a de facto, not a de jure, change. In law Mugabe would still be the supreme executive authority, and so it would be a voluntary arrangement that he could reverse if he wanted to – although that might trigger serious repercussions within the ruling party.

A new face

According to Moseke, Mnangagwa would take steps to put a new face on the ZANU-PF government. He would fire its more egregious elements, including Information Minister Jonathan Moyo and the Commissioner of Police, Augustine Chihuru, whose men have been accused of partisan political behaviour and human rights abuses, and he would “restore the rule of law.”

Moseke said Mnangagwa would adopt a more pragmatic approach to the land resettlement issue, getting some white commercial farmers back on the land and trying to revive agricultural production.

On the political front, Moseke said, the Mnangagwa group was prepared to offer the MDC two Cabinet positions, but he added that he believed the ANC could persuade them to increase the number to five, with several Deputy Ministers.

The present Zimbabwe Cabinet has 27 members, with a number of Deputy Ministers.

Moseke added that if the MDC did not accept the proposal, Mnangagwa would crush the opposition movement more completely than Mugabe had sought to do – but Coltart says he had the impression this was Moseke’s own assertion and not a threat from Mnangagwa himself.

The Stellenbosch appearance

In his account of the meetings, Coltart says he explained to Moseke that the MDC could not enter into a Government of National Unity on those terms, pointing out how the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and its leader, Joshua Nkomo, had been degutted and destroyed by being co-opted as junior partners into the ZANU-PF government.

“I also told him that Mnangagwa would be unacceptable both to us and to the international community as the political leader of Zimbabwe,” Coltart said.

On December 12 Coltart submitted a detailed report of his meetings in Johannesburg to Tsvangirai.

The weekend of December 13-15 saw Mnangagwa given a prominent role at the ZANU-PF congress in Zimbabwe.

Four days later, on December 19, Mnangagwa was presented on stage at the ANC’s national conference in Stellenbosch, and given a standing ovation.

While Mnangagwa was still in Stellenbosch, Zimbabwe’s Sunday Mirror, an independently-owned pro-ZANU-PF newspaper, published a report stating that there was a Mugabe exit plan. It gave no details.

Lull over holidays

At the same time, on December 18, Tsvangirai revealed in an address to MDC members in Harare that he had been approached by Dycke who had presented to him what he called an “Anglo-South African plan” for Mugabe’s exit. A convoluted report of this appeared next day in the pro-MDC newspaper, The Daily News

But by now southern Africa was into the Christmas holiday season – known in media circles as the “silly season” – when everything shuts down as people go on holiday and serious news goes on the back burner. No-one picked up on these intriguing reports until early January.

Then three foreign correspondents, hearing further rumours of Dycke’s involvement, went to see the retired colonel. They say Dycke was reluctant to speak to them at first, but eventually told them in confidence of his meetings with Zvinavashe, Mnangagwa and Tsvangirai. They thereupon went to see the MDC leader who was also reluctant to speak, but under intense questioning eventually confirmed the exchanges through Dycke – this time on the record.

And so on January 16 the story broke in The Times of London and in South African newspapers. Tsvangirai was also interviewed by the BBC, which broadcast his confirmation of the Dycke discussions on its Africa Service.

Denials – and an admission

This was followed by swift denials from Zvinavashe, Mnungagwa and ZANU-PF itself that there was a conspiracy against Mugabe. Mbeki’s office also denied any involvement in or knowledge of a “plot” to oust Mugabe. Mugabe himself, at a function to honour ex-President Kenneth Kaunda in the Zambian capital of Lusaka (Mugabe was still on his way back from his Far East holiday), denied that he was going to retire.

But none denied that there was a plan to move Mugabe into a titular Presidency and delegate his executive powers to Mnangagwa as a Prime Minister.

In another press interview published on January 19, Zvinavashi admitted there was a crisis in Zimbabwe, so serious, he said, that “it cannot be left to nature.” However he again denied that there was a plot to oust Mugabe, saying it was essential that the President remain in office for his full term.

What does it mean?

What does all this mean?

It seems clear that there was a plan to move Mugabe into the position of a purely ceremonial President, and for him to appoint Mnangagwa as a Prime Minister who could introduce some reforms in the hope of making the Zimbabwe government look more acceptable to the international community.

It seems probable, too, that South Africa was involved in the plan and wanted to persuade the Mnangagwa group to include some MDC members in its new Cabinet so as to give the appearance of a Government of National Unity, which is what President Mbeki has been aiming at for from the outset.

Acceptance of such a plan would have enabled Mbeki and Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo, as members of the Commonwealth troika together with Australia’s John Howard charged with reviewing Zimbabwe’s suspension in March, to report that there was a material improvement in the Zimbabwe situation and that the suspension should not be renewed.

Mbeki would have emerged from that triumphant, his much-criticised policy of “quiet diplomacy” vindicated.

But the MDC is not playing ball. It sees the proposal as a ploy to co-opt it as a minority player in a process to sanitise the ZANU-PF regime and leave it in power, with no prospect of a new election until Mugabe’s term of office runs out in 2008. They believe they would be powerless in that position and that their constituents – whom they believe are the majority of the Zimbabwe population – would reject them angrily for betraying them and joining a regime that has repressed them violently.

The MDC is rejecting any deal that does not lead to an early election, which the Mnangagwa group appears unwilling to contemplate. Which means that on the face of it the plan is a non-starter.

What will happen now?

So what will happen next? Thus far this report has set out the facts of what has happened. Assessing what may happen next takes it into the uncertain realm of speculation.

The first intriguing question is whether Mugabe was party to the plan or not. Either way, there are significant implications.

    If he was party to the plan and this emerges, as it must if it is true, his party and the people of Zimbabwe will know that he is ready to relinquish executive authority and his almost dictatorial powers. That will make him a lame duck President.

    If Mugabe was not party to the plan, it means both he and other party leaders now know that his two most trusted supporters, who have kept him in power through their commanding positions in the military and the ruling party, have been planning to get rid of him. In the words of Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, they are “coup plotters.” This must undermine Mugabe’s authority within the party as well as his own sense of personal security.

Either way it must mean that Mugabe is now seriously weakened. It has been recognised by the party’s king-makers that he has become a liability to both the party and the country. It can be only a matter of time before he goes.

But how will he go? I believe the first of the two possibilities I have outlined above is the most credible one – that Mugabe was party to the plan; that the combination of age, unrelenting pressure and the fear of what may happen to him and his family should Zimbabwe collapse completely and even his own closest supporters turn against him, may had led him at last to look for a safe way out. The prestige of a high ceremonial office is not a bad prospect for a lifetime retirement.

Unilateral implementation

So my guess is that after lying low for a time to let the storm subside, the planners will become active again and implement the strategy unilaterally – without the MDC. Probably Mugabe himself will announce it and make the appointment of Mnangagwa.

In presenting a new-look Cabinet without the participation of the MDC, Mnangagwa might well turn to the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), whose leadership has been following a conciliatory rather than a confrontational strategy in its dealings with the government over farm seizures – a controversial approach that has led to a breakaway movement called Justice for Agriculture (JAG) whose members are challenging the farm seizures in the courts.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Mnangagwa could invite the CFU president, Colin Cloete, to join his Cabinet as Minister of Lands. And since more than 50% of the seized commercial farms have not yet been occupied by black farmers, who do not have the capital or support systems to run them, to invite some of the white farmers to return to their land.

This may happen only after the Commonwealth troika’s March meeting, but Mbeki and Obasanjo could assure Britain’s Tony Blair and other key Commonwealth leaders that a change in Zimbabwe is in the offing, with Mugabe withdrawing from the seat of power and handing over to Mnangagwa who will embark on a programme of reform.

They may even say that an offer was made to the MDC to participate in a Government of National Unity, but that regrettably it has refused.

How the international community, and Britain in particular, might react to such a presentation is hard to say. I believe they would see it for what it is, but might also reckon that it offers a better way forward than continued confrontation. The response of most major powers to problems like this at the periphery of their national interest is that they simply want them to go away.

Possible MDC moves

But how the MDC reacts to the new situation could change the course of events in unpredictable ways.

Already, by disclosing the exchanges that took place through Dycke, Tsvangirai has thrown a cat among the ZANU-PF pigeons. When the leader of any party that has been in power for 23 years shows signs of going, power struggles often begin over the succession. It is no secret that Mnangagwa is not popular within ZANU-PF: he has been seen as a favourite son for too long, and a clandestine move to make him the successor without going through normal party election processes is bound to stir up resentments and resistance.

Already at least three factions are said to be forming within ZANU-PF, and similar splits may soon appear in the military. One group, led by Solomon Majuru, who headed Mugabe’s guerrilla army during the liberation war and was the first chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Force (he went under the nom de guerre of Rex Nhongo then) is said to be strongly opposed to Mnangagwa as the successor. He is said to be supported by the Minister of Defence, Sydney Sekeremayi, and Joshua Nkomo’s former guerrilla commander, Domiso Dabengwa, who joined ZANU-PF in the Nkomo merger and was then defeated in his Bulawayo constituency in the 2000 parliamentary elections. Though retired, Majuru is said to still have influence over key figures in the Zimbabwe Defence Force.

Demos at the cricket?

In such an atmosphere, public reaction may begin to show itself in a country that has been remarkably passive in the face of economic collapse and mass starvation. If the MDC, which has played a restrained role since last year’s election to avoid attracting even greater repressive action against its members, decides to become more assertive now and take to the streets to demonstrate its popular support, there may be violent clashes – which would hardly convince Blair and the other Commonwealth members that Zimbabwe is on a road to recovery.

This may well begin with the World Cup cricket matches in Zimbabwe. One of the factors that has restrained the MDC is that the Mugabe government’s clampdown on journalists has choked off reporting of the crackdown on the political opposition and of the targeted starvation of their supporters as ZANU-PF controls the distribution of food aid. There are no foreign television teams left in Zimbabwe, and the state-controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation does not cover such matters.

But the foreign television cameras will be there for the World Cup matches. It is an opportunity the MDC may well seize upon to demonstrate their support to the world, and to let the world see how the Zimbabwe security forces deal with opponents. It will be a testing time for the opposition. If their demonstrations are impressive they will make a telling point. If the turnouts are poor they will suffer a major public relations setback and the Mnangagwa scenario will likely go ahead with tacit world approval.

Posted in Biographical, Press reports | Leave a comment

England call for Harare switch

By David Coltart | Published January 26, 2003

The Daily Telegraph
26th January 2003
By Scyld Berry and Neil Manthorpe in Harare

England’s cricketers will declare their deep reluctance about going to Zimbabwe for their World Cup match on Feb 13 in a statement to be issued on their behalf by Richard Bevan, the managing director of the Professional Cricketers’ Association.

The statement is expected to call for England’s qualifying match against Zimbabwe to be transferred from Harare to South Africa, and make plain that they will only agree to go to Zimbabwe because of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s contractual obligation.
The players’ moral stance has intensified in recent weeks to the point where the captain, Nasser Hussain, asked to attend a meeting between David Morgan, the ECB chairman, and Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, on Friday to discuss threatening letters sent to the team’s dressing-room by a Zimbabwe protest group before the first one-day series final in Sydney.

The letters, addressed to each player, purported to come from Zimbabwean freedom fighters. They outlined the reasons against making the trip to Zimbabwe and subtly indicated that security for the match could be breached.

The group claimed to have bypassed security at the one-day international between Zimbabwe and Pakistan in December, a match the International Cricket Council monitored as part of their security review of the country.

“Nasser Hussain advised me that the players that were ready to go a week ago are less ready now,” Morgan said. “They were receiving threats about the possibility of disturbances and riots during and in the lead-up to our match.”

Morgan, however, held out the hope that England might yet be allowed off the hook. Speaking in Melbourne yesterday while England were being beaten by Australia in the second VB final, he insisted that “a live review” of the situation in Zimbabwe would continue right up until the day of the game.

The ICC are due to decide this week whether security in Kenya is adequate for two World Cup games to be staged there. If they announce that Kenya is too dangerous, a precedent will be set, and the momentum to have Zimbabwe’s matches transferred as well can only increase.

England’s game with Zimbabwe could be rescheduled up to four or five days before it is due to be played, according to Malcolm Speed, the ICC’s chief executive.

Beyond that, the management of either side would have to make an application to the World Cup’s technical committee to have the points shared if the match cannot proceed for security reasons. If they think there is a case to answer, the matter will go before the appeals committee, made up of three judges – one each from South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya.

It is believed that Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein have been identified as the grounds which could stage matches switched from Zimbabwe at short notice. England will be based at Port Elizabeth for their two warm-up matches on Feb 4 and 6.

However, Speed re-iterated yesterday that the matches in Zimbabwe would go ahead as the security situation had not deteriorated sufficiently for the players’ safety to be at risk.

A more alarming scenario was presented in Harare yesterday by Movement for Democratic Change MP David Coltart. He said his party had always been committed to peaceful protest and would continue to hold demonstrations during the tournament next month but added: “The situation is extremely volatile and could explode at any moment. There is no way anybody’s safety and security can be guaranteed in the current climate. It just requires the tiniest spark and it could come from anywhere at any time.”

He also suggested that the trial on a flimsy treason charge of MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, beginning on Feb 3, could act as a catalyst for unrest.

“The trial will last at least two weeks. Does the world have any idea of the emotions that will be generated in Zimbabwe?” Coltart said. “Has the world seen the so-called ‘Green Bombers’ [war veterans] indiscriminately beating people up? The police don’t just condone it, sometimes they organise it.”

Speed and his World Cup organising committee counterpart, Ali Bacher, visited the country for 24 hours on Wednesday and Thursday and outraged MDC supporters with their positive verdict on the Zimbabwean police.

“For Ali Bacher to say he was ‘heartened’ by their enthusiasm was utterly appalling, disgusting and outrageous,” Coltart said. “He was talking about a force that has selectively applied the rule of law for over two years and routinely detains innocent citizens and tortures them. Bacher and the ICC have just endorsed torture.”

By addressing the issue of player safety the ICC have been narrow minded and short sighted, Coltart said. “Cricket is nothing without spectators. The ICC, presumably, will fly the teams in and out of the country and guard them with high security, but what about the people who have to make their own way – or are they not the ICC’s responsibility?”

Coltart also refuted the claims by Bacher that police commisioner Augustine Chihuru had guaranteed opposition groups the right to demonstrate “provided the correct procedures are followed”.

“This police force has relentlessly clamped down on every form of legal protest, however peaceful. Now there is a deep, deep level of anger.

“There is anger that this regime is endorsed by the ANC in South Africa and anger at the inactivity of the international community. Add in the food shortages and lack of basic necessities and you think we can tell visitors to Zimbabwe that they will be ‘safe and secure’?”

Graeme Smith, the captain of the South Africa A team on tour in Harare, said: “We are treated so well. We have excellent food, the hospitality couldn’t be better and we have haven’t experienced a moment of insecurity or discomfort. If I didn’t know any better I’d go home and say everything looks fine.

“But on the way from the airport we drove past a bread queue with hundreds of guys having the hell beaten out of them by police with batons, because they were hungry. And I’ve spoken to the workers in the hotel. They have starving families in the country.”
Zimbabwe cricket’s chief executive, Vince Hogg, said: “No one is saying, or has ever said, there are no problems in Zimbabwe Heath Streak [Zimbabwe’s captain] has copped a lot of flak recently for saying that it is safe to play cricket in Zimbabwe, that there is no security risk. But that must be separated from people becoming emotional about the problems the country has. We believe it is safe to play cricket here, and so does the ICC.”

In a separate development yesterday the England players agreed to remain in Australia together before flying to South Africa direct, in accordance with the ECB’s wishes. The one exception is Steve Harmison, who will be allowed home to see his second child, who was born in December.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Politics has no place in sport – so boycott the World Cup

By David Coltart | Published December 31, 2002

Daily Telepgraph
by: David Coltart

The decision of the International Cricket Council (ICC) on December 19 to allow Zimbabwe to host World Cup matches has aroused fierce debate in Britain. A similar debate has raged within Zimbabwe for several months, and has threatened to split the cricketing fraternity. As a passionate supporter of Zimbabwean cricket, I have agonised over what stance I should take.

There are some compelling arguments why the matches should go ahead. The situation in Zimbabwe is not analogous to that which prevailed during apartheid in South Africa in certain important respects.

Unlike in South Africa, where boycotts of sporting events hurt the people supporting the apartheid regime, namely white spectators and players, the vast majority of Zimbabwean players and supporters detest the Zanu-PF regime just as much, if not more, than Britons.
Robert Mugabe and his cronies do not care much for the game. Aside from losing the political capital they could have made out of the matches, they would not be hurt by a boycott. Paradoxically, holding the matches in Zimbabwe opens up a tiny piece of democratic space for those fighting tyranny.

The mere prospect of the matches and the eventual presence of several hundred reporters, albeit cricket reporters, in Zimbabwe for a very short time, has restrained the human rights excesses of the regime. If no matches take place, there will be no further reason for the regime to behave better.

Against this is the fact that the Zanu-PF regime itself is desperate for the World Cup to be held in Zimbabwe because it is a wonderful opportunity to present to the world a facade of normality without having troublesome journalists in the country too long to scratch beneath the surface.

If the situation in Zimbabwe were improving – or at least stabilising – this would not be too bad. Tragically, however, the situation is worsening, and Zimbabwe is in the throes of a catastrophe largely the fault of the regime.

The ICC faced this dilemma in making its decision. The Zimbabwe Cricket Union (ZCU) pressed to be allowed to host the World Cup for entirely sporting reasons. Both the ICC and the ZCU made the mistake of believing that sport could be separated from politics and, in making that mistake, played into Mr Mugabe’s hands.

They must have known that their decision would be unpalatable to the governments and sporting publics of Australia, England and Holland. Having made that decision, there is now a real danger that only these “white” cricket-playing nations (although that is a misnomer, as virtually the entire Namibian team is white) will be forced to boycott.
If that happens, it will be a godsend to Mr Mugabe, who will proclaim it as further proof that his is a just battle against racists who are concerned only about the plight of white farmers. The struggle in Zimbabwe is not about race, but about tyranny, which is why it would be wrong for Australia, England and Holland to act alone.

A white boycott would offer Mugabe a double victory: he would be relieved of prying British journalists, and would still be able to present an appearance of normality to the hundreds of millions of Commonwealth cricket lovers who will watch the Indian and Pakistani matches just weeks before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in March.

The only way out of this mess is for the ICC to revisit its original decision and consider the following.

First, while it is entirely correct to keep sport out of politics, this works both ways. In other words, the ICC should seek an assurance that the regime will not be allowed to make any direct political capital out of hosting the matches. It should demand, for example, that Mr Mugabe does not open the matches and is not introduced to any of the players. Tony Blair did not open the last World Cup, so such an undertaking should not be too onerous. If this assurance cannot be given, it must be clear that the matches are going to be used for political purposes and, in accordance with the ICC’s commitment to an apolitical World Cup, the matches should be moved to South Africa.

Second, the ICC has said that it based its decision entirely on whether the safety of players could be guaranteed. What it has not apparently considered is whether it can guarantee the safety of the thousands of cricket supporters of all the nations playing in Zimbabwe.

Just days before the ICC made its decision, Mugabe said: “The more they [European governments] work against us, the more negative we will become to their kith and kin here.” In the same week, a white Canadian woman was charged in Victoria Falls for refusing to pay a bill using Mugabe’s rate of foreign exchange.

In view of these racist hate speeches and policies directed randomly against whites in Zimbabwe, how can the ICC – or the ZCU – possibly guarantee the safety of thousands of the “Barmy Army” from attacks by war veterans and the youth militia? Unless the regime gives an undertaking that such racist hate speech will end immediately and that steps will be taken to protect spectators, I do not see how their safety can be guaranteed.

Third, if the ICC is committed to politics being kept out of sport, why did it agree to political conditions being imposed on the press corps? Only registered sporting journalists will be allowed into the country, and only to visit Harare and Bulawayo. There are cricketers (all of whom have views on cricket and other matters) living throughout Zimbabwe who would treasure the opportunity to speak to the press.

Surely by colluding in such an act of censorship the ICC has itself acted in a political manner. Unless the regime can give an undertaking that there will be unfettered access to the entire country by all bona fide journalists for the duration of the World Cup, the ICC should not be party to a political gagging of the media.

If no such undertakings are given, it is not too late to move Zimbabwe’s matches to South Africa. While such a move would prevent many cricket lovers, including me, from watching matches that we have longed for, there is no doubt that this decision would be in the interests of both cricket and democracy.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Open Letter to Mugabe

By David Coltart | Published September 12, 2002

SW Radio Africa
by Siphosami Malunga

Dear Mr. President

I read with utter dismay what was ascribed to be your comments relating to David Coltart and Roy Bennett as reported in the Herald of 5 September 2002. Those comments have motivated me to set the record straight and jolt your memory somewhat about the past. I have made this letter public because your comments were and it is necessary for the public to be made aware of the full facts.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Siphosami Malunga, the second son and fourth child of the late Sidney Donald Malunga, M.P for Makokoba, who died in August 1994 and was declared a national hero by your government and buried at the National Heroes Acre. I am writing this letter from the newly independent Democratic Republic of East Timor where I am a trial attorney in the Special Panel for Serious Crimes which is entrusted with the responsibility over trials of persons (including civilian, military and political leaders) for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, violations of the laws and customs of war and other serious human rights abuses which occurred in East Timor between 1975 and 1999. It is work which I enjoy as its purpose is the achievement of justice in a post-tyrannical and post-dictatorial regime which targeted the civilian population for human rights abuse.

Lest your criticisms of David Coltart in particular be taken as gospel truth, I would like to highlight certain facts. You have labeled David Coltart and Roy Bennett as being British (as if that on its own were a sin). I will have you know that they were both born in Zimbabwe, Coltart in Gweru to be precise. According to Section 4 of our Constitution both are Zimbabwean. You were quoted as saying that Coltart and Bennett must leave Zimbabwe or else they would be imprisoned. I wish to remind you Mr. President that no matter how unpleasant you may regard the two parliamentarians and their views, you have no choice. They are Zimbabweans and therefore constitutionally guaranteed the right to live in Zimbabwe. This right is absolute. A citizen cannot be deported from his own country and it would be interesting to hear your reasons for your position if any.
That said, you are reported to have threatened Coltart and Bennett with imprisonment if they remain in Zimbabwe. I wish to draw to your attention Mr. President, to Section 13 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which guarantees every citizen the right against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Any imprisonment of Coltart and Bennett simply on your arbitrary decree would be a violation of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. I urge you to desist from this course of action. In doing so I reflect Mr. President on how imprisonment has been used by your government against perceived political opponents such as Coltart and Bennett in the past. Between 1982 and 1987 your government detained amongst other PF ZAPU leaders and ZIPRA commanders, Sidney Malunga- my father.

I am not authorised to speak in relation to others so I will limit myself to speaking of Sidney Malunga. At the time of his detention, you were Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and First Secretary of ZANU PF. The main reason for Malunga’s detention was that he was a vocal critic of government corruption, abuse of human rights and political persecution inter alia. It seems Mr. President, that imprisonment is still being used by your government as a political tool to suppress the legitimate voice of the opposition. Do you recall Mr. President how, your government used the same tactics currently employed against opposition supporters and leaders, how the police and the CIO raided the homes of PF ZAPU politicians, including my own home. The constant raids on the homes of MDC leaders including its President come as no surprise to many. That is your government’s modus operandi. It has always been. So, the recent intimidation of the opposition and its supporters, the beatings, the torture, the arrests, the detentions, and the killings is the only way the government knows how to deal with its opponents. Like MDC, PF ZAPU was branded by yourself and your government as saboteurs, and enemies of the State. We all know of course that PF ZAPU played as crucial a role for the independence of Zimbabwe as ZANU PF did and that its leaders spent an equal amount of time in political detention under the Ian Smith regime as ZANU PF leaders. Malunga is one such example. We also know that ZIPRA played as important a role in the armed struggle for Zimbabwe’s liberation. Yet, its commanders spent long spells in detention in post independent Zimbabwe under your government.

Let me revert to David Coltart’s track record in particular. I disagree with your one-sided and false allegations against him. I first came to know David Coltart in 1985 when he took up my late father’s case in which your government accused him of aiding or assisting dissidents. I should remind you Mr. President that at this time your government had declared its intention to ‘wipe out’ PF ZAPU and its leadership and the Zimbabwe National Army was fully deployed in Matabeleland and the Midlands amidst a state of emergency. It was an unsafe time for many of us and David Coltart showed courage and commitment to take up this case when not many lawyers were willing to do so for fear of repercussions from your government. Sidney Malunga was detained in April 1985 and David Coltart worked tirelessly, in the face of intimidation, threats, and difficult circumstances to secure his release. Even as Central Intelligence Organisation agents and police tortured and shuffled him from prison to prison in order to prevent him from having access to his lawyer, David Coltart left no stone unturned in order to consult with his client. I need not mention that with Coltart’s representation, Malunga was acquitted of these charges. Malunga was also charged with treason and again acquitted. Once again, David Coltart represented him in the most difficult of circumstances.

I disagree that Coltart is a puppet and that his opinions are anybody’s other than his own. As I know him, David Coltart is primarily a lawyer and a human rights advocate. He has always been a man of principle. Later on in 1991, I had the opportunity to work with him on some projects including the cases of the disappearances and alleged murders of civilians at the hands of the Gukurahundi in Matabeleland and Midlands in the eighties. With no motive apart from the pursuit for justice, he headed the Bulawayo Legal Projects Centre in its assistance of victims of the Gukurahundi in their quest for accountability and compensation. I was impressed that as a white Zimbabwean Coltart was pre-occupied with pursuing justice for the thousands of black victims of human rights abuses by the government in the 1980’s. It is disappointing Mr. President that you now use race as a basis for attacking people like David Coltart. I recall how shortly after independence 1980 you called on all Zimbabweans in the diaspora, David Coltart included to return to Zimbabwe to contribute to building a truly non-racial society based on equality. Have you changed your mind Mr. President? Is Zimbabwe now only for blacks? How does that compare with the apartheid regime of Ian Smith?

As a young lawyer recently graduated from University in 1994, I found Coltart encouraging and inspirational. He nurtured my own interest in human rights and accountability of perpetrators of human rights abuse- a field in which I am now heavily involved in East Timor and hope to be involved one day in my own country. Now David Coltart finds himself, together with other leaders of the opposition as well as its supporters on the receiving end of your government’s wrath simply for holding opinions different from the government’s. He and Roy Bennett are dutiful citizens exercising not only their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech but also their parliamentary mandate on behalf of their constituents. To allege that Coltart is the puppet master of the opposition MP’s is to belittle the institution of Parliament, which is a cornerstone of our democratic heritage as well as to insult, our intelligence. I recall Mr. President how you branded Sidney Malunga, the late Lazarus Nzarayebani, Margaret Dongo and Byron Hove as rebels for their fearless debate and critical views of issues in the House of Assembly and their criticism of government policy. Is this a case of deja vu? Once upon a time when you were Prime Minister you used to face MP’s during question time and tackle criticisms head on. Now it seems that the exercise of one of the most fundamental democratic functions (parliamentary representation) causes discomfiture to your government.

It is a most sad state of affairs Mr. President when in life the government hunts down those of its own citizens who fight for equality, democracy and human rights and later extols them in death. I say this of Sidney Malunga. I find it ironic that you attack the virtue and integrity of the one person, who, when you had Malunga cornered rose to the challenge and refused to allow your government to finish him off. Next time you speak of Malunga as the hero of heroes as you have described him, the voice of the voiceless, a fearless debater in Parliament, please Mr. President remember that were it not for people like David Coltart, Malunga may not have been able to be all these things and that he did all this in spite of the government harassment of him. As the son of this hero, a human rights lawyer and an accountability advocate, I therefore urge you to retract your criticisms and desist from further making them.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to express my concern about the general state of affairs in Zimbabwe, which I am certain, has been caused by your government. The validity of the Presidential election remains an issue which must be resolved, over 6 million people face starvation and food aid is reportedly being denied to opposition supporters, the law is being applied selectively against opposition members or government opponents, the judiciary is constantly under attack from the executive for exercising its democratic and constitutionally protected independence, your government has constantly encroached on this independence, your party ZANU PF is reportedly torturing opposition supporters, and the government continues its onslaught on press freedom. This is indeed a sad state of affairs and one, which you are constitutionally obliged to redress.

I recommend that your government take the following measures as a matter of urgency:
· call a fresh Presidential election,
· ensure that food aid is distributed to all who need it regardless of political affiliations,
· repeal the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which violates the freedom of the press,
· repeal the Public Order and Security Act which is the worst encroachment on constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in Zimbabwe,
· assure the safety and protection of all citizens and allow them to exercise their fundamental rights without interference,
· not only comply with decisions of the Courts but also enforce them in order to maintain the greatest respect for the judiciary,
· bring to justice known perpetrators of human rights violations in Zimbabwe without further delay.

I thank you for taking the time to read my letter and pledge myself to participate in the process of bringing known violators of human rights justice should your government commence this process.

Yours sincerely
Siphosami Malunga
Dili, East Timor

Posted in Biographical, Press reports | Leave a comment