‘Mandela is key to Mugabe early exit plan’

By David Coltart | Published November 1, 2000

IOL

1st November 2000

Harare – Nelson Mandela could play a critical role in working out a plan for the early exit from power of Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, a top Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) opposition politician said on Wednesday.

“I think that Mandela has a critical role to play in developing an exit strategy for Robert Mugabe,” said David Coltart, legal affairs secretary for the opposition MDC.

Coltart said Mandela should be able to “convince” Mugabe and broker talks between the two opposing political forces in the country – the MDC and the governing Zimbabwe Africa National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) – that the head of state should leave office before presidential elections, due to be held in 2002.

“If we are to avoid a bloodbath, unfortunately we are going to have to engage in practical politics in this country, we have to work out an exit strategy for Robert Mugabe and his henchmen, and Mandela plays a big role in this regard,” Coltart told a news conference

MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai met Mandela in late September and asked him to get Mugabe to leave office before his presidential term ends in 2002.

The MDC last week launched impeachment proceedings to remove Mugabe from office on allegations of gross misconduct and violations of the constitution.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Death threat against MDC candidate

By David Coltart | Published June 22, 2000

Sapa-Sapa-AFP

BULAWAYO — A candidate for Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change, David Coltart, said yesterday he had been informed of a new death threat against him, apparently linked to his work as a human rights lawyer during the Matabeleland massacres in the 1980s.

Coltart, who has been threatened on several occasions during the election campaign, said news of the threat came from a sympathetic senior police officer in Bulawayo, who had asked to meet Coltart’s campaign manager, Simon Spooner.

“Simon was told we should be extra careful because there were plans to eliminate me if I revealed the information I have on Gukurahundi, the Fifth Brigade.”

Gukurahundi was the name given by President Robert Mugabe to the programme of genocide carried out by his Korean-trained Fifth Brigade in the province between 1983 and 1985. At least 10000 people were detained and 7000 beaten or tortured. While investigators could confirm over 2 000 deaths, they said possible dead could be more than five times that number.

Coltart investigated many of the incidents and was co-author of the Catholic Justice and Peace Commission report on the episode.

The MDC has proposed war crime tribunals for those responsible for the killings, who include several Zanu-PF candidates running in the election.

The original reports and other “damning” documents used in compiling the commission report are now housed in London for safekeeping.

Coltart said he had no intention of using the documents in the election campaign, and did not in any case have any authority to do so, as they were controlled by the commission and the Legal Resources Foundation, co-sponsor of the project.

Coltart said the police officer told Spooner he had learned of the threat through intelligence circles. He said he himself did not know the origin of the threat, other than that it came from “within government circles”, possibly the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO).

He was concerned at the new threat, which followed earlier threats to firebomb his home and a visit by the CIO a few weeks ago. “Knowing the nature of this regime you can’t take these threats lightly,” he said.

Coltart, who is standing as a candidate in Bulawayo, has for several weeks now been accompanied by at least one armed bodyguard when he moves in public.

Posted in Biographical, Press reports | Leave a comment

Honour in Harare

By David Coltart | Published June 21, 2000

The Daily Telegraph
21st Jun 2000
Anonymous

THREE days remain before Zimbabweans vote in a general election after a campaign which has been both a disgrace and an honour to their country. The disgrace falls on President Robert Mugabe and Zanu-PF.

They have conducted a wicked war of intimidation against their opponents, from white farmers and their employees to candidates of the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Murder, human torching, beating, gang rape and arson have been the instruments of their terror.

The government has ignored a court ruling on the illegality of occupying white farms. It has emasculated the Electoral Supervisory Commission to the extent that yesterday it decreed that only one neutral Zimbabwean monitor would be allowed at each of the 4,600 polling stations on Saturday and Sunday. The commission had trained 20,700 for this task. Since he lost a constitutional referendum in February, Mr Mugabe has shown he will stop at nothing to keep Zanu-PF in power.

British concern at these flagrant violations of human rights has been dismissed as neo-colonialist, the typical retort of a tyrant seeking to divert attention from his own misrule. Shamefully, the Blair government has in part compromised with this nonsense by ceding to Mr Mugabe’s dictate that no Britons be included in the election monitoring teams. Give a villain an inch and he will take a mile; Harare has now barred 17 Kenyans and Nigerians as observers on the absurd charge that they are British plants.

Xenophobia has also been extended to the World Council of Churches, the International Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, and two American non-governmental organisations, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute; all have been refused a monitoring role, cutting the total number of international observers from 600 to about 400. According to David Coltart, the MDC’s legal secretary, in such dire conditions even a team of 1,000 would be inadequate.

Honour is due to the opposition, led by Morgan Tsvingarai. Their courage and resourcefulness in the face of government-sponsored terror have exceeded all expectations. On Sunday, they drew 25,000 people to a rally in a Harare football stadium. Elsewhere, as David Blair, our Harare correspondent, reports in today’s news section, they have devised more unorthodox means of campaigning. The latest opinion poll predicts they will achieve an absolute majority in the House of Assembly.

A MDC victory would be richly deserved. However, it would be wrong to underestimate the determination of Mr Mugabe and his henchmen to defy public opinion. Government predictions that the opposition will win only three seats, the same as in the dissolved parliament, suggest that if Zanu-PF cannot persuade voters, it will rig the poll. The monitors, too few and tardily deployed, may not be able to prevent such gross irregularities but they must cry out whenever they occur. No shred of legitimacy should attach to Zanu-PF’s attempt to steal the election from the people of Zimbabwe.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Britain must take lead against Mugabe

By David Coltart | Published June 12, 2000

Daily Telegraph
Letter to the Daily Telegraph
12 June 2000

SIR – David Coltart’s article on Zimbabwe (opinion, June 6) made heartening – and depressing – reading. As the effect of the remorseless ratchet of Robert Mugabe’s subversive policies pervades life there, so the will of the international community to influence events seems to evaporate.

The stark reality is that the Harare despot and his Zanu-PF henchmen are embarked on the destructive phase of a Marxist-inspired vision to destroy the country’s constitutional integrity, economy and social cohesion. Faced with the ruinous consequences throughout southern Africa, is it really beyond the gumption of our Government to instigate steps that will give courage to the great majority of Zimbabweans to end Mr Mugabe’s regime?

Our decisive action in Sierra Leone contrasts with the weak and largely ineffective stance on Zimbabwe. Surely, on grounds of policy and national responsibility, Britain should take the lead in rescuing Zimbabwe. It is, after all, a country we created. As well as the immediate implementation of the election safeguards which Mr Coltart recommends, we should persuade the Commonwealth to deploy along the South African border an armed force, including military and civilian police, ready to guarantee the effectiveness of the monitors and election observers and the security of the voters.

We should also make it clear that we are withdrawing any agreement for the payment of compensation to dispossessed landowners and are prepared to give indefinite leave to remain in Britain to any Zimbabwean seeking sanctuary.

The Commonwealth is sheltering behind the fig leaf of its humiliating deal with Mr Mugabe to ensure a fair election, which is not happening. Having undertaken a duty to uphold the constitution, the Commonwealth is obliged to take all reasonable steps to protect the democratic process now in progress. Britain’s responsibility to give a lead is clear.

Posted in Letters, Press reports | Leave a comment

David Coltart

By David Coltart | Published June 1, 2000

MDC Legal Affairs

Dedicated Human Rights activist

David Coltart was born in Gweru in 1957. He is committed to Zimbabwe and Bulawayo, a city he has lived in for many years and where his three children attend school. He is the candidate for Bulawayo South.

Coltart notes: “Zimbabwe’s economy has collapsed because ZANU-(PF) is violent and undemocratic. It has spent our hard earned money on a huge cabinet, imported Mercedes Benz vehicles, involved Zimbabwe in a futile war in the Congo – the list of the Government’s incompetence is a long and sad song.”

From work at the Bulawayo Legal Projects Centre where he started his legal career, he learnt that the people of Zimbabwe are unaware of their fundamental rights. Decades of human rights abuses have left citizens feeling cut off from the justice system. To improve society, the Centre now runs 10 legal advice branches for the underprivileged in Matabeleland, organises workshops and seminars, is involved in test case and public interest case litigation. In the past year the Centre has been responsible for a number of landmark Constitutional decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.

“Do not be fooled by ZANU(PF)’s use of land to divert our attention away from the disastrous state of the economy and their corruption. Since 1987 this party has had in its hands all the constitutional power to solve the land issue but it has failed dismally. Now they want to dump people on small plots without giving them ownership of that land, without providing roads, water, schools or clinics to ensure success for these abandoned communities. They cannot provide the needed infrastructure because the economy is bankrupt and they will not get any funding for their land policy because of their irresponsible behaviour.

“Zimbabwe stands at a crossroads. We cannot continue down the road to destruction built by the present government. We have the choice to change direction for the sake of our children-to follow the MDC road to democracy and economic revival. We have all been victims of ZANU(PF)’s violence, threats and economic mismanagement for the last 20 years. The MDC is committed to non-violent democratic change, to fighting corruption and to wise spending of our Nation’s precious resources.”

Coltart spent his school years at Hillside Junior School and then Christian Brothers College. He left Zimbabwe for the University of Cape Town where he attained a BA in Law and a LLB (post graduate degree in law). During his time as a student, he was interested in human rights issues which led to an involvement in organisations committed to defending the democratic principles of society. From 1980-81 he was the Chairman of the Zimbabwe Students’ Society and in the following year worked as Director for the Legal Aid Clinic in Crossroads Squatter Camp and was also elected to the Law Students’ Council.

He came back to Zimbabwe in 1983, to work for a legal firm, where he was appointed a partner in 1984. Since 1983 he has been involved in hundreds of human rights cases including the defense of the late Sydney Malunga, the late Edward Ndlovu, Welshman Mabhena and Stephen Nkomo.

David became the Senior Partner for Webb Low and Barry, Legal Practitioners, Bulawayo in 1998. Clients include Churches, Church organisations, human rights activists, politicians, political parties, parastatals and corporations.

Current Commitments

  • Chairperson for the Bulawayo Legal Project Centre
  • Trustee for the Legal Resources Foundation
  • Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Petra School Trust
  • Elder of the Bulawayo Presbyterian Church
  • Vice Chairman and Trustee of the Edward Ndlovu Trust
  • Board Member, Central and Southern African Legal Assistance Foundation
  • Advisory Board Member of Zimbabwe Human Rights Association.

As an individual he has spoken out against human rights abuses and corruption for 17 years. “If we Vote for MDC together we will create economic growth and increased prosperity in our wonderful country. The choice is yours. I urge you to vote for a new start for Zimbabwe. A new beginning.”

Posted in Biographical | 1 Comment

Zimbabwe farm workers taking the heat

By David Coltart | Published May 29, 2000

IOL

By Jeremy Lovell

29th May 2000

Harare – Activists of Zimbabwe’s ruling party beat and intimidated farm workers who did not attend its election rally, farmers said on Monday.

“They took a roll call and sent people to farms whose workers were not adequately represented and beat them up,” claims a spokesperson for the Commercial Farmers’ Union.

Zanu-PF, which is facing its biggest election challenge in 20 years, held the rally near Glendale, 80km north of the capital, Harare, on Sunday.

“There is also widespread extortion going on all over the country as they demand food, money, transport and shelter,” the spokesperson. “They are running out of money.”

President Robert Mugabe, who does not face re-election until 2002, has called parliamentary elections for June 24-25 for which parties and their candidates have until Friday to register.

In South Africa, government officials were not available to comment on weekend newspaper reports that President Thabo Mbeki had secured money from Norway and Saudi Arabia to fund the acquisition of 118 white-owned farms in Zimbabwe for redistribution to landless blacks.

Mbeki’s African National Congress (ANC) met a high-level Zanu-PF delegation in Johannesburg on Saturday and closed ranks with Mugabe’s party, demanding unconditional British funding for land redistribution.

The Mugabe government has accused Britain of reneging on past promises to help settle the land redistribution issue.

Dead people’s names on voters list

The main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has been combing the electoral roll to ensure that all 120 of its candidates and the 10 people who have to nominate each of them are on the roll in the correct constituencies.

“It really is a shambles,” said MDC parliamentary candidate David Coltart. “We haven’t been able to get a copy for ourselves, yet we know Zanu-PF has one.”

The MDC said at the weekend that it already had found serious anomalies in the voters’ roll, including names of dead people and members of the same household listed in different constituencies.

The government, in what is widely seen as an attack on whites and particularly British nationals, has said anyone found to be holding two passports would be barred from voting. Zimbabwean law prohibits dual nationality.

Coltart, who said he renounced British citizenship years ago to become a Zimbabwean citizen, said he might have to go to court to prevent his candidacy from being rejected.

Foreign diplomats said privately that as whites formed less than one percent of the country’s 12-million population and were, therefore, electorally irrelevant, the move was pure harassment.

At least 24 people, mostly black, have been killed and hundreds beaten and forced to flee their homes in the face of a campaign of land invasions and political intimidation in the past three months.

Farmers and diplomats said at the weekend that police, who have been criticised for failing to stop the violence, appeared to be taking a more active role in crime prevention.

Mugabe has condemned the violence, but said the invasions by party supporters and war veterans of more than 1 000 of the country’s 4 500 mainly white-owned commercial farms was justified because the process of land redistribution had been too slow.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

A message of hope for Zimbabwe

By David Coltart | Published May 1, 2000

Legal Resource Foundation, Bulawayo

Zimbabwe is passing through the darkest chapter of its history in the run up to the 2000 elections. The economy, which has been battered by inept ZANU(PF) rule and corruption over the last few years, may well melt down in the next few weeks. There is no foreign currency. Factories and other businesses are laying people off. And now to compound all the pre-existing problems ZANU(PF) has engineered massive pre-electoral disturbances, violence, murder and general mayhem centered on the land problem in an effort to divert attention away from the disastrous state of the economy and to intimidate the growing numbers of those who support the Movement for Democratic Change. It is now clear that there is a Third Force, crafted by Mugabe and his cronies which is designed to intimidate the electorate into either not voting at all, or voting for ZANU(PF).

The result has been the dramatic loss of confidence in the future by the electorate. Minorities fear that ethnic cleansing could begin shortly. There is a real fear that the Police at best have looked the other way recently and at worst have acted as accomplices to murder. As a result farmers have left their land and hundreds are so unsettled by what is going on that they have packed their suitcases (to enable a quick exit) and are making plans to emigrate in the short to medium term.

In view of all that is happening can there be any hope for the future or is Zimbabwe sentenced to an inevitable slide into total anarchy? I believe that there are six reasons why there is still a lot of hope for Zimbabwe.

1. The violence is a consequence of ZANU(PF)’s fear of losing the election

I am not surprised by the events of the last few weeks, indeed months ago I warned that we had a long, hard and rocky election road to travel on. When there was euphoria over the Referendum result I warned that ZANU(PF) would fight dirty. Those of us who lived through the Gukurahundi in Matabeleland know the true nature of this beast and the lengths Mugabe will go to achieve a political objective.

Ironically the increased ferocity of the violence is in itself a source of hope because the increase, both in “quality” and quantity, is an indication that ZANU(PF) is increasingly frightened of losing the election. I believe that the violence has been deliberately notched up over the last few weeks. When the farms were first invaded the thinking was clearly that invasions alone would deter farmers and labour from backing the MDC. As we know they did not and if anything support for the MDC grew. The violence was then taken up a notch (beatings and humiliation of farmers started and farms were laid under siege) but that didn’t work and the MDC continued to spread. A nightmare scenario was being created for ZANU(PF): it knew that it had lost the towns but was counting on winning the rural areas and securing a majority – with this development it faced losing outright. Hence in the last two weeks we have seen violence being taken up one more notch with the murder and torture of farmers. The point is simple: whilst the increase in violence is appalling we need to remember that it would not have happened had ZANU(PF) felt secure. That the violence continues now against farm workers and communal villagers is an indication that ZANU(PF) itself knows it can still lose the election and in that there is hope, ironic as it is.

2. The MDC horse has already bolted

Had the vicious campaign of violence commenced 6 weeks ago there would be little comfort in making the first point mentioned above. There is no doubt that whilst 6 weeks ago the vast majority of Zimbabweans were fed up with ZANU(PF) rule, they did not know that there was a viable alternative in the form of the MDC. I recall that during the time of the Referendum I received reports from several rural areas to the effect that the there was no MDC name or election symbol recognition in those areas. From the same areas after the Easter break I have now received reports of widespread MDC name and symbol recognition. What is more, the same reports detail the establishment of MDC structures and that there is huge support for the MDC in these remote areas. Discussions with my colleagues elsewhere indicate a similar phenomenon throughout Zimbabwe. Perhaps even more significantly there are now widespread reports of rural and poor people countrywide stating, in the face of violence, that they now know how to vote and are simply waiting for election day.

The point is that whilst ZANU(PF) is slamming the stable door shut through violence, intimidation, abuse of the rule of law and devious “legal” measures, it is too late: the MDC horse has already bolted. And lest people think that intimidation will ultimately still win the day I should mention the following. Firstly, one must remember that in Matabeleland in the 1980s the people did not succumb to much greater intimidation by the 5 Brigade. Despite near genocide and boasting,in the media, of a huge swing to ZANU(PF), it did not win a single seat in the 1985 election in Matabeleland. Secondly, the intimidation strategy is not winning support for ZANU(PF) – it is only creating more enemies for itself.

Thirdly, a critical mass of political opinion has now been achieved – there is now a clear understanding amongst the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans as to what the problems are and what is needed to solve them – and history in the form of the 1972 Pierce Commission, the 1979 election, the 1980 election (and even the 1985 election as it played out in Matabeleland) show what happens when a consensus emerges in the electorate. A new consensus has emerged, namely that change is needed and that the MDC offers the only way forward. If anything the ZANU(PF) engineered violence will have rammed that point across.

3. The penny has finally dropped in the international community’s mind

For years many of us in the human rights community and in the opposition have been speaking about the real nature of this tyrannical regime. Most of our cries have fallen on deaf ears. I can vividly recall arguing in the State Department in Washington in 1992 that pressure should be applied on the World Bank not to support the economic structural adjustment programme unless meaningful steps were taken to enhance democracy; I was laughed off. In the same year I wrote in the Financial Gazette that unless economic liberalisation was accompanied by political liberalisation ESAP would fail. The international community and even local business were not interested.

Even when the so called “land demonstrations” began the international media did not at first understand what it was all about. But the penny has finally dropped in the minds of the international community that this is a tyrannical regime that is determined to stay in power at any cost and which will cause immense damage to the region if not reigned in. In the last two weeks there has been a marked change in the way the international media has interpreted what is going on. That in turn is having a massive influence on domestic opinion in the region and in the West. That opinion is in turn now dominating how the problem is to be tackled politically. The point is that there is now massive antipathy towards the Mugabe regime and increasing sympathy for those trying to do something about the problem within Zimbabwe.

That has never been the case before. At worst there was, in the past, indifference to what was happening in Zimbabwe. At best there was abysmal misunderstanding. Now there is understanding and outrage in the international community, evidenced by the huge press contingent (the largest in any single country since the Gulf War) now resident in Zimbabwe. And whilst that contingent may grow tired and decline in number the problems of Zimbabwe will never again be treated in the same way they were prior to this crisis.

What has emerged in the course of the past week is that there is now a consensus between South Africa and nations in the EU as to what needs to be done in Zimbabwe. Whilst the ZANU(PF) controlled media portrayed the Victoria Falls summit as a triumph for Mugabe the lie to that was given in 3 ways. Firstly, it was strange that Mugabe, as the host and the senior “statesman”, did not speak at the post meeting press conference regarding issues that concerned him ie Zimbabwe. Secondly, if the meeting was such a triumph, then why was he so very glum at the conference? Indeed Mugabe was visibly angry at the meeting and I thought at the time it was because he had had the Riot Act read to him. Thirdly, we now know that he did in fact have the Riot Act read to him and that the quid pro quo for Southern African support for land reform was in the form of undertakings from him to hold free and fair elections, to invite international observers and to get the ZANU(PF) thugs off the farms. President Mbeki has now cancelled his State visit to Zimbabwe (a fact confirmed to me in Harare on the 28th April by a senior South African diplomat) – he will now only come to open Trade Fair, an undertaking he felt he should honour.

On Friday the 28th I met three High Commissioners from 1st world Commonwealth countries, the Ambassador of one of the leading EU countries, senior representatives from the United States Government and, as stated above, a senior ranking South African diplomat. I was astonished by the change in attitude towards the ZANU(PF) regime – suffice it to say that all referred to it as a corrupt, totalitarian government. They all had a clear understanding that if the current violence continues the elections will not be free and fair. All were desperately concerned about what is going on and listened intently to what the MDC believes should be done. All were keen to help in the run up to the elections and I think all will send observers and provide whatever resources are needed to assist in making the elections as fair as possible in the circumstances.

The point is that we are no longer alone. There is enormous international goodwill out there; Governments the world over are determined not to let ZANU(PF) get away with murder as it has in the past. Importantly the same Governments have a profound understanding now about the true nature of this regime and that the land invasions are about suppression of opposition rather than about land. They will not let the wool be pulled over their eyes any longer.

4. ZANU(PF) is increasingly divided

It is increasingly apparent that the ZANU(PF) election campaign is being spearheaded by the President himself and the likes of Hitler Hunzvi and that there are many in ZANU(PF) who are not at all happy with this turn of events. We know that in the week before the murders of farmers happened a majority in cabinet resolved to get the ZANU(PF) thugs off the farms – that is why Vice President Msika issued the statement he did ordering them off, only to be rebuffed by Mugabe on his return from Cuba. It is no coincidence that it was Minister Dabengwa who a few weeks earlier had made the same call as Msika – he, like Msika, is a former ZAPU member who was not responsible for the gross human rights abuses perpetrated against the people of Matabeleland in the 1980s. This week it was revealed in the London Times that Perence Shiri, the commander of the 5 Brigade in 1983 at the height of the Gukurahundi, is co-ordinating the invasion of farms and the accompanying violence. That fact will only make the likes of Dabengwa and other doves in cabinet even more alarmed. They know that there will be life after a defeat at the polls (that they will not face prosecution for crimes against humanity) and they do not want to get sucked into massive human rights abuses on the scale of what happened in the 1980s. Mugabe and Shiri on the other hand have nothing to lose.

Parliament dissolved by operation of the Constitution (it cannot be reconvened) on the 11th April and it is increasingly clear that Mugabe is determined to rule by Presidential decree. The advice this weekend that he will use the Presidential Powers Act to amend the Land Acquisition Act is evidence of that. But the very use of Presidential decrees at this juncture will alarm many within ZANU(PF) who believe that Mugabe has too much power as it is. The use of this decree will almost inevitably result in an even more serious Constitutional crisis than we face at present. The sense of unease within ZANU(PF) can only grow.

Even the army in recent weeks has shown that it is not prepared to follow ZANU(PF) blindly. The statement of Colonel Diye, the Army spokesman, on the 11th April, that the army will respect a democratic change in government, is highly significant. The previously held assumption that the army was just a branch of ZANU(PF) no longer holds good. The statement in itself reveals that not all in the army are happy with what is happening.

Thinking people in ZANU(PF) know that Mugabe’s actions are devastating the economy, an economy that they will have to deal with if the strategy works and ZANU(PF) is returned to power. They are also bright enough to know that they will have to heal the damage without international support, which they know will not be forthcoming in the event that the international community deems ZANU(PF) to have won by foul means, as will be the case if the current strategy continues. As the economy continues its freefall the divisions within ZANU(PF) can only grow. The only question is how long the sane people within ZANU(PF) will stay on board ship. Not all are prepared to destroy the country simply to avoid Truth and Justice Commissions and anti corruption enquiries (which is undoubtedly what is driving Mugabe et al to stay in power whatever the cost).

The point is that ZANU(PF) is simply not the same monolith it was. It is seriously divided against itself and as the economy melts down over the next few weeks its cracks will grow wider and wider.

5. We are in the majority

Despite all the violence and intimidation the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans want change and are increasingly angry about the cynical exploitation of the land issue by Mugabe over the last few weeks. The findings of the Helen Suzman Foundation prior to the Referendum (including the finding that the most important issue in the minds of over 80% of the population is the state of the economy) simply will not go away. Intimidated people may not speak openly about what concerns them but their concerns do not vanish. If anything people are even more concerned now about the state of the economy and blame Mugabe even more for its failure. The link between Mugabe’s irresponsible behaviour and the quickening collapse of the economy is now more apparent than ever before. In other words the number of people who blame Mugabe and co for the disastrous state of the economy have grown dramatically since the Referendum.

And in one of the greatest ironies of the campaign Mugabe, Hunzvi and Professor Moyo have done more than anyone else to promote the MDC as a viable alternative. During the $50 million Constitutional Commission’s “Yes Campaign” in the run up to the Referendum Professor Moyo was at pains to establish a link between the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) and the MDC, referring to it as the NCA/MDC alliance. The NCA is of course in truth an umbrella body representing many different political parties, churches and NGOs. However Professor Moyo’s own propaganda fixed in the mind of the electorate that the NCA and the MDC were one and the same and as a result the MDC got virtually all the credit for the Referendum victory (among political parties that is).

Since the Referendum Mugabe, Hunzvi and Moyo have directed all their venom towards the MDC and whilst MDC rallies are never covered on the ZBC the attacks on it, to the exclusion of all other opposition parties, are covered every day. As a result ZANU(PF) has itself unwittingly promoted the MDC as the only force opposed to it which is capable of bringing change. In other words the vast majority of Zimbabweans now feel that only the MDC has the will or the ability to satisfy their desires for fundamental change.

The point is that the dissatisfaction felt by an overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans has if anything grown in recent weeks and that majority has coalesced around the MDC. The concerns will not go away, the fact they are felt by a majority of Zimbabweans will not go away and the fact that ZANU(PF) is held responsible will not go away no matter what violence is rained on the Zimbabwean electorate. If the majority of Zimbabweans agreed with the violence and Mugabe’s tactics then we would be in trouble as a nation. However there is massive hope in the reality that it is only a tiny, rabid and, increasingly, deranged minority which is directing the current mayhem.

6. There is ancient wisdom which provides hope

The prophet Isaiah nearly three thousand years ago wrote of the consequences faced by political leaders when they violate God’s most fundamental principles of governance. Isaiah 1:21-23 describes a corrupt and unjust regime very similar to that experienced by Zimbabwe – a regime that is ruled by murderers, rebels, companions of thieves, people who love bribes and chase after gifts, people who do not defend the cause of the fatherless and who have no compassion for the cause of widows.

In Isaiah 1:31 it is written:

“The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark; both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire.”

That is the inevitable consequence for all rulers who fall into the category mentioned above. History is replete with many examples of despotic leaders who have eventually been undone not, ironically, by the works of others but by their own works. This century alone we have the striking example of Hitler who built up a powerful regime only to destroy it all by invading Poland and Russia. And in Zimbabwe it is Mugabe’s deployment of troops into the Congo, Mugabe’s corruption, Mugabe’s disrespect for the rule of law which have acted as the spark. He, once a mighty man, is now merely tinder and ZANU(PF) just a shell.

Further along in Isaiah (40:23-24) it is written:

“He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.”

I have no doubt that what is happening in Zimbabwe today is the whirlwind of change. Whilst it is terrifying being in the middle of this whirlwind we need to remind ourselves that it will not last for ever and positive change will result. In other words the process of what is unfolding in Zimbabwe will not stop and will move to its inevitable conclusion no matter what Machiavellian schemes are devised by the corrupt ruling elite in Zimbabwe.

The way ahead

In sounding an optimistic note I must stress that I still anticipate that violence and abuse of human rights will continue and possibly even increase as ZANU(PF) becomes increasingly desperate. After all ZANU(PF) has nothing else to offer the electorate and if it gives up on its violent campaign it will most certainly lose the election by a wide margin. Mugabe knows this very well and for this reason will keep intimidating the electorate right up to the time of the election. What then are we to do?

Martin Luther King, the great American civil rights activist in the 1960s, provides guidance:

“When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice.”

That is the task facing all of us. I have no doubt that the international community will continue to do its bit: international pressure is mounting on ZANU(PF) all the time. It is up to Zimbabweans however to play their part as well. They can do so in the following ways.

I am appalled by the rumours flying around Zimbabwe. Whilst I have no doubt that some have been started by the CIO to induce a sense of panic, especially amongst minorities, many are spread by otherwise responsible people who take no steps to verify the rumour before spreading it further and who, frankly, should know better. It is critically important that those who are committed to democratic change do not fall for this particularly insidious tactic. In essence do not start or spread rumours.

I am appalled by reports of people packing their bags and making hasty plans to emigrate. Whilst I understand the sense of panic, the sense that there is no one to turn to, the sense that one cannot even turn to the Police for assistance, the sense that Zimbabwe is spiralling out of control, I believe that now, more than ever, is the time for calm and resolute behaviour which recognises the fact that our fears are shared by the vast majority of Zimbabweans. If the panic was based on an understanding that the majority were happy with events then there would be cause for packing bags and getting the first flight out. But this is not the case. If anything this is a test of the commitment of minority races and black professionals (the two groups of people most likely to flee) to Zimbabwe and to fellow Zimbabweans. The vast majority of Zimbabweans simply cannot flee and that includes the aged, widows and the poor. Are we just going to abandon all these people? And if altruism is not a compelling enough argument are we going to give up all that has been built up simply because we have been held to ransom by a few thugs for a few months? No – Zimbabwe is too precious a country to abandon in this way and, what is more, we are far too close to marvellous and profound democratic change to give up the fight at this juncture.

To quote Martin Luther King again:

“Freedom has always been an expensive thing. History is fit testimony to the fact that freedom is rarely gained without sacrifice and self-denial.”

Zimbabweans! Stand firm and remain determined to play your role in achieving democratic change!

David Coltart
Secretary, Legal Affairs
MDC

Posted in Letters | Leave a comment

Report on Martin Olds’ Murder

By David Coltart | Published April 19, 2000

The Telegraph

By David Blair 

19 April 2000

A SCORCHED and bullet-scarred farmhouse showed the struggle mounted by a white Zimbabwean farmer during a two-hour siege yesterday before he was killed by 70 armed attackers.

Martin Olds, 43, died after gunmen launched a dawn raid on his home at Compensation Farm in Matabeleland, 400 miles south-west of the capital, Harare. He was repeatedly wounded during a gun battle that left his right leg shattered. However, he continued to fight his assailants and wounded two before succumbing.

Mr Olds’ death came barely a day after President Robert Mugabe assured the Commercial Farmers’ Union that the crisis, which has seen squatters occupy more than 1,000 farms, would soon be over. The tragedy also followed the murder on Saturday of David Stevens, another white farmer.

Four people were being questioned in connection with the murder of Mr Olds, Chief Supt Wayne Bvudzijena said last night, although no arrests had been made. Local farmers said Mr Olds had been a target for murder by fanatical supporters of Mr Mugabe who were brought by bus to the area.

Mr Olds told a neighbouring farmer during a desperate radio conversation at about 6am: “I’ve been shot and I need an ambulance”. His attackers had arrived about 30 minutes earlier with automatic weapons. They burst through his security fence to surround the house. A local farmer said: “He had already said, ‘If anyone comes on my property I will shoot them’.”

Mr Olds defended himself with a shotgun and a hunting rifle. His right leg was broken but he made his own splints and continued to fight back. As the alarm was raised, nearby farmers tried to establish the situation. Guy Parkin, 20, approached the farmhouse at 6.45am. He said: “When I got there, there were lots of cars outside his gate. When I asked one of the war veterans what was going on, a shot was fired over me.”

Mr Parkin, fearing for his life, hastily retreated. He said most of the attackers were drunk and waving empty beer bottles. About 45 minutes later, Mr Olds was dead. Craig Wood, a local farmer, saw his body and said he had been “severely beaten”. Police did not appear until 9.30am, when the attackers immediately fled.

Mr Olds was described as a character who might have become a target because of his fiery temper. Wally Herbst, another farmer, said: “He was a very strong-willed man who knew right from wrong. That was probably why they went for him. Much as we mourn Martin’s death, we are afraid of the situation now, especially as these guys seem to be armed.”

David Coltart, legal secretary for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change and a prominent lawyer in Matabeleland, said the attack was organised by Comrade Jesus, a notorious leader of farm invasions who had been brought into the area. Most of the assailants were from the majority Shona tribe.

The local people are Ndebele speakers with a deep loathing for Mr Mugabe’s government. Local farmers suspect that shock troops of the ruling Zanu-PF party are being brought into the area to cause renewed unrest. Mr Olds was alone in the farmhouse when he was attacked, but he leaves a widow, and two children, Angus, 14, and Martine, 17. Kathy Olds, who was disabled by childhood polio, had been looking forward to their 25th wedding anniversary.

She described her husband as “a rock, a moral man of very high principles”. She said he had no idea why he had been made a target. Mrs Olds was first told that her husband had been injured and that his assailants had thrown a cordon of roadblocks around the house to stop an ambulance from reaching him.

With his telephone and radio disabled by the attackers, Mr Olds was left alone to face his death. He fought with the elite Grey Scouts during the bush war of the Seventies and was well equipped to defend himself. His armoury consisted of a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a 9mm handgun and a Magnum revolver.

An ambulance treated two of his assailants for shotgun wounds to the legs and the crew confirmed that their patients were from the Shona tribe. Mr Olds farmed cattle on 12,000 acres in the Matabeleland. The farming community is in shock but many are determined to stay. Craig Wood said: “We can’t give up. There’s no way I can go. I’ve never been out of Africa.”

Matabeleland has seen few farm invasions since the crisis began in February. Farmers are shattered that one of their number could have been targeted for murder. Mr Herbst said: “These guys were on a mission. They picked on him to provoke a reaction and get a result – perhaps to get the president to declare a state of emergency.”

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

Mugabe declares war on country’s white farmers

By David Coltart | Published April 19, 2000

The Independent
By Rupert Cornwell
Wednesday, 19 April 2000

Britain accuses Harare of reviving the racism of colonial Rhodesia as President says war veterans are justified in their attacks

Robert Mugabe in effect declared war on his country’s white farmers last night, branding them “enemies of Zimbabwe” and blaming their intransigence for the spate of land seizures and mounting violence of recent days.

Robert Mugabe in effect declared war on his country’s white farmers last night, branding them “enemies of Zimbabwe” and blaming their intransigence for the spate of land seizures and mounting violence of recent days.

Speaking on television after formal addresses marking the 20th anniversary of independence from Britain, the President not only failed to condemn the attacks, but to all intents and purposes explicitly endorsed his country’s plunge into anarchy, which saw the murder of a second white farmer yesterday.

“Our entire community is angry,” he declared. “This is why you have the war veterans seizing land.” He then turned his wrath on the former colonial power, accusing the current Labour Government of reneging on earlier British commitments to fund the redistribution of white-owned land.

In London, the response was swift as Peter Hain, the Foreign Office Minister for Africa, accused Mr Mugabe of failing to halt the tide of lawlessness, and condoning racism akin to that practised by the former minority white regime ousted in 1979. He flatly ruled out any further British help with land reform until the occupations ended and a fair, legal re-allocation scheme was introduced.

There could be no double standards on racism, Mr Hain told a Commons committee; what was happening now was “no different from the old dictatorship of Ian Smith and the repression he was responsible for”. The result, he added, was the most serious crisis in modern Zimbabwe’s history.

Mr Hain’s outrage was echoed by the white farmers themselves, as David Hasluck, director of Zimbabwe’s Commercial Farmers Union, expressed his “deep disappointment” that Mr Mugabe had refused to order the squatters off the occupied farms. The murder of Martin Olds, the rancher killed near Bulawayo yesterday, could only have been “part of a planned action which the authorities did nothing to stop”, Mr Hasluck said.

In his formal addresses yesterday, Mr Mugabe reverted to telling different things to different audiences. Speaking in English, he sounded comparatively moderate, expressing regret at the death of the two farmers, and promising to work for a compromise. But in his native Shona, he was defiant and unapologetic, thanking the war veterans and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front supporters for invading the farms.

“Mugabe is two-faced,” said David Coltart, the legal adviser to the Movement for Democratic Change, the principal opposition movement. “He puts on his genteel face to the West and on television, and we see the other face.”

More clearly than ever, encouragement for the land seizure is Mr Mugabe’s potential trump card for the forthcoming elections – designed to deflect attention from war in the Congo, corruption and economic mismanagement.

The unequal distribution of land, whereby 70 per cent of the best agricultural land is owned by a few thousand white farmers, was “the last colonial question”, Mr Mugabe said, unresolved since the first white settlers dispossessed the native black inhabitants a century ago, and their descendants codified their gains in a 1930 land allocation act.

Though he is deeply unpopular in Harare and other cities, Mr Mugabe is gambling that the farm seizures will be enough of a vote winner in the countryside, where a majority of the population still lives, to guarantee him victory in the elections, due by July but whose date has yet to be set.

Theoretically there is a chance of a breakthrough next week, when Stan Mudenge, Zimbabwe’s foreign minister, visits London for talks with Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, on a new land re-allocation scheme.

But the softening in Mr Mugabe’s stance recently detected by Mr Cook now looks illusory. With relations between Zimbabwe and Britain going from bad to worse, the last hope of compromise seems to lie with South Africa, Zimbabwe’s main trading partner, whose own economy is starting to be buffeted by the turbulence in its northern neighbour.

President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, who thus far has kept largely silent on the crisis, is due to visit Harare at the beginning of May. But if events continue at their present pace, any window for mediation may have by then been closed.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

“The Smoke and Mirrors Constitution”

By David Coltart | Published December 3, 1999

Zimbabwe Independent

  • The Constitutional Commission appointed by President Mugabe, which cost Zimbabwe several hundred million dollars, wound up its work with the presentation of a new draft constitution to President Mugabe on the 29th November 1999. We are told that the “people have spoken” and that the draft constitution reflects the views of the people. When the exercise began it was feared that it would be simply a smokescreen; an elaborate exercise designed to usher in a new ZANU (PF) sponsored constitution under the guise of the people’s views. The President has now called for a referendum to be “fast-tracked” and no doubt within the next few weeks the next stage in the propaganda battle will begin.

    The question that every Zimbabwean has to ask prior to voting in the referendum is “will the proposed draft constitution lay the necessary foundation for the emergence of a strong, and economically powerful, democratic state?” At first glance the constitution appears to be an improvement on the old one. However on deeper analysis it is apparent that this constitution is no more than what I would term a “smoke and mirrors” conjuring act. For the new constitution is not all that it appears to be and in many respects is even more draconian than our existing constitution.

    A less powerful Executive?

    The last few days of the Constitutional Commission saw a fierce debate emerge as to whether the people wanted a ceremonial President or an executive President. Strong arguments have been put forward by many as to what the view of the people was. I do not propose to tackle this issue. What is indisputable is that an overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans wanted dramatic reduction in power allocated to the President and a spreading of powers between the three arms of Government, namely the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. In the circumstances it is not even necessary to get embroiled in the ceremonial/executive President debate. All that we need to do is analyse the new constitution to see whether it, firstly, meaningfully reduces power vested in the hands of one man and, secondly, spreads that power amongst the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. A closer examination of the new constitution reveals that it has achieved neither of the above for the following reasons:

    1. The proposed executive President will retain most of the powers enjoyed by the incumbent President in terms of the existing constitution and in fact will have some additional powers he does not enjoy at present. In terms of section 100(2)(b) the President will have the power to appoint and remove the Prime Minister. Whilst the President will have to act on the advice of the Prime Minister in appointing Cabinet Ministers, because he has the power to remove the Prime Minister it is obvious that he will effectively control the composition of Cabinet. In addition he will preside over Cabinet meetings. These features not only retain existing powers but have the additional effect of blurring the separation between the Executive and the Legislature. The measures give the President a much closer link to Parliament. A particularly insidious new provision is that, whilst the President has to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and with the sanction of Parliament to deploy defence forces outside Zimbabwe and to declare war, the same does not apply to the deployment of troops within Zimbabwe. Chapter X of the constitution allows the President unfettered powers to deploy troops within Zimbabwe. In terms of section 186 he only has to act “in consultation” with the Prime Minister (in other words he does not have to comply with the Prime Minister’s wishes) and, worse still, he can deploy troops within Zimbabwe without having to have such a deployment approved by Members of Parliament. In addition in terms of section 188 the President now has the power “to determine the operational use” of the defence forces. It is pertinent to note that these are new and additional powers given to the Executive President which are particularly chilling when one considers how the incumbent President and his cabinet have used the army to quell internal dissent in Zimbabwe in the last 20 years.
    2. The President will have virtually unchanged rights to declare a state of emergency. Whilst such a declaration will have to be referred to Parliament no right is given to citizens of Zimbabwe, as is afforded by the South African constitution, to challenge such a declaration through the Courts. It should be noted that the President will have the right to declare a state of emergency only “in consultation with” the Prime Minister. Once again he will not have to follow the views of the Prime Minister in doing so.
    3. The existing Presidential prerogative of mercy and Presidential immunity provisions contained in our present constitution are virtually unchanged in the new. Section 85(2) of the new constitution which deals with Presidential immunity, is somewhat ambiguous but could be interpreted to mean that the President enjoys immunity from prosecution for anything done in his official capacity (whilst in office) even after he leaves office. That provision alone is against the overwhelming sentiments expressed by the people as recorded in the thematic committees’ draft papers.
    4. ZANU (PF) apologists have been at great pains to point out that the President’s existing powers to appoint Judges, Ambassadors and heads of commissions have been curtailed in that such appointments will now have to be approved by the Senate. On the face of it the new measures do amount to a reduction in Presidential powers but in reality I believe the President will still have effective power regarding such appointments. The reason for this is partly because the President largely has the sole discretion in the selection of appointees, but is mainly because the Senate will be a relatively weak body. It is proposed that the Senate will be comprised of sixty members, ten of whom will be chiefs, forty of whom will effectively come from rural areas and the remaining ten, all of whom will come from Harare and Bulawayo. Some four million people live in Harare, Chitungwiza and Bulawayo. Accordingly one third of the population (the urban population, the majority of whom are disenchanted with the present regime) will be represented by one sixth of the Senatorial seats. Furthermore, and somewhat ironically, because of the introduction of proportional representation in the election of senators, minority parties will almost certainly be excluded from the Senate. Senatorial seats will be contested in ten provinces on a proportional representation system which means that minority parties will have to secure at least 20% of the vote cast in each respective province to get a single Senatorial seat. In addition with the high age limit of 40 (the United States’ Senate has an age restriction of 30) the Senate is likely to be dominated by conservative, rural, ruling party apologists and I doubt whether the President will have much difficulty in securing a simple majority approval vote in the Senate.

    It can be seen from this that the new draft is a very cunning deception. It appears to provide a check on Presidential power but in reality will not be an effective check at all. All told the President will, in reality, be just as powerful in terms of the new constitution as he is in terms of the existing constitution. What is horrifying is that in some ways he will be more powerful in that he will have much tighter control over Parliament and better defined powers to use the military both outside Zimbabwe and, more seriously, within Zimbabwe.

    An Independent Judiciary?

    All would agree that there have been clear and unequivocal calls this year for an independent and strong judiciary. Sadly the judiciary will be weakened by the new constitution.

    1. Despite all the rhetoric the President will still exercise vast power in the appointment and removal of Judges. The President will have virtually unfettered powers in the appointment of the Chief Justice. He simply has to “consult with” the Judicial Services Commission and then has to get the appointment approved by a weak Senate. The President has virtually unfettered powers to initiate the removal of the Chief Justice. He does not have to consult anyone in doing so and is entitled to select two of the three members of a tribunal which must be set up to determine whether or not the Chief Justice should be removed from office. In stark contrast the Presidents of South Africa and the United States of America play a very limited role in the removal of their respective Chief Justices.
    2. The Judicial Service Commission will be dominated by the President. Seven of its nine members will be directly or indirectly appointed by the President, albeit with the approval of the Senate. By way of comparison the South African constitution requires that at least fourteen of the twenty four Judicial Service Commissioners there are appointed without the South African President having any say in the matter. The effect of the Zimbabwean provision is to give the President an effective veto. As it is mainly the President who will determine the composition of the Judicial Service Commission so it will be that the President will control the composition of the Judiciary. People who are deemed to be anti-Government will not be on the Judicial Services Commission and accordingly a tame Judicial Services Commission is unlikely to recommend independent minded lawyers for appointment as Judges.
    3. The Supreme Court itself has been dramatically emasculated by the creation of a new constitutional court. The Supreme Court’s existing powers to interpret the constitution will be removed with the creation of a new constitutional court. From a cursory glance at the new provision it appears as if a constitutional court will be independent. However closer examination reveals that whilst it will be comprised of present Supreme Court Judges and the Judge President, Parliament will be given wide powers, in terms of the constitution, to pack the court with additional judges. Section 151(3)(b) of the new constitution will grant Parliament the power to appoint additional judges to the constitutional court. This is a horrendous provision which completely negates the principle of separation of powers and undermines the independence of the judiciary. Parliament will have the power to pack the constitutional court with almost a majority of judges who will then consider the constitutionality of bills presented to the constitutional court by the very same Parliament which appointed these judges in the first place! Given that the President will have wide powers already in appointing the members of the judiciary it will be seen that it will be relatively simple to ensure that a majority of the constitutional court judges will be executive minded and will assist in stifling the progress of democracy in Zimbabwe.

    A new Bill Of Rights which enshrines International norms?

    The hearings that have been conducted by both the Constitutional Commission and the NCA this year have shown that there is amazing unanimity of thought regarding the need for a new and comprehensive Bill of Rights. Whilst there has been disagreement regarding some issues, such as the death penalty, an overwhelming majority have called for the introduction of rights which are omitted from our existing constitution. In this context the proposed Chapter III of the new constitution is a particularly outrageous example of ZANU (PF)’s smoke and mirrors trickery. The reason for this is because Part 2 of Chapter III, which sets out the rights is, by and large, a superb rendition of the fundamental rights we hold dear. For example at first glance there appears to be a limitation on the death penalty, unfettered rights to freedom of expression, rights to privacy and so on. However a closer examination of Chapter III in its entirety reveals a cynical strategy to deny Zimbabweans of their fundamental rights for the following reasons.

    1. Part 2 of Chapter III contains a few new insidious “rights”. For example the President’s request for a right to “dignity and reputation” has been included in section 42. When this right is read in the context of the limitation clause in Part III it is quite clear that the freedom of expression right will be severely curtailed to protect the “dignity and reputation” of the ruling elite. Furthermore the new right to acquire agricultural land opens a pandora’s box and effectively denies owners of agricultural land the right to receive fair compensation within a reasonable period of time. Why we could not have borrowed the South African land acquisition clause is beyond me.
    2. But the most iniquitous provision, which undermines the entire Bill of Rights, is found in the limitation section (Part 3). This clause takes away, threefold, with the left hand what has been given with the right hand. Every single right given in terms of Part 2 is subject to the limitation clause in Part 3, which allows Parliament to pass laws which limit our fundamental rights. The worst provision of all is section 62(3)(b) which allows Parliament to limit our fundamental rights in the interests of “defence, public safety, public order” and “the general public interest”. It is particularly instructive to note that the equivalent South African limitation clause has been followed closely save for the inclusion of this additional power given to Parliament to limit our fundamental rights in “the general public interest”. It is difficult to conceive of any legislative initiative which could not be described as in “the general public interest”. In short the limitation clause found in Part 3 of Chapter III completely undermines the Bill of Rights and renders it virtually meaningless.
    3. The Bill of Rights is further undermined because of the provisions, mentioned above, stating that the interpretation of our rights and the validity of any bills limiting our rights, will now be determined by a constitutional court packed with “judges” appointed in terms of an Act of Parliament. In other words not only will Parliament have wide powers to enact legislation to limit our rights but it will also have a huge say in determining the composition of the judges who will determine the application and ambit of our rights.

    A Fair Electoral System/Proportional Representation?

    The Constitutional Commission has acknowledged that Zimbabweans have called for a fair electoral system and for the introduction of proportional representation. The Constitutional Commission has responded to this by creating an ostensibly independent electoral commission and a proportional representation system of elections. In reality there will be neither.

    1. A Fair Electoral System?

      Whilst it may be that there could be an independent electoral commission in future, as far as next year’s elections are concerned the Fifth Schedule to the new constitution makes it quite clear, in section 3(1)(e), that the present Delimitation and Electoral Supervisory Commissions and, significantly, Electorate Directorate (which includes the Registrar General) will be deemed to be the first “Independent Electoral Commission”. Whilst it is fully understood that there is need for a transitional provision (in that the future Independent Electoral Commission will be selected by a Senate which will be non existent prior to the new elections) it is shocking that the Constitutional Commission, having accepted the need for an independent authority, has not been more creative in ensuring an independent transitional electoral authority.
  • In future, that is after the first House of Parliament has been elected in terms of the new constitution, the President will appoint an Independent Electoral Commission. Whilst that appointment is subject to approval by the Senate, given the fact that the President exercises absolute discretion as to who will be presented to the Senate for approval in the first place, and, given the potential weakness of the Senate, it is clear that there is a great danger that the Electoral Commission will not be independent at all. Once again the South African constitution is instructive in that opposition parties have a say in the composition of the Independent Electoral Commission there.

    • 2. Proportional Representation

    Much, no doubt, will be made of the fact that the Senate will have fifty Senators elected by means of proportional representation and that fifty seats in the National Assembly will be chosen by means of proportional representation. However the most elementary calculation shows that proportional representation systems work more effectively and fairly the greater the number of seats which are voted for. Ideally, at least a hundred seats should be contested to ensure that minority parties, who secure, for example, 1% of the vote, will at least secure one seat in Parliament. It is pertinent to note that the South African constitution ensures that its House of Assembly (which comprises not less than three hundred and fifty people) is voted in by means of proportional representation. That system ensures that even small, fledgling, political parties have some representation in Parliament. Our proposals are a far cry from that ideal.

    The proposed system of proportional representation for the Senate is a complete negation of the principle of proportional representation. As stated above, five Senatorial seats will be contested for in ten provinces. The proportional representation system will operate in the context of each province which means that minority parties will require 20% of the vote to secure a single seat. Likewise in the National Assembly a party may secure 40% of the national vote but may only end up with twenty seats in the National Assembly. The whole point of proportional representation is not to just give the opposition a voice but a voice commensurate with its support. This these proposals do not achieve.

    In formulating its proposals the Constitutional Commission used the excuse that people wanted a representative who would be accountable to them and who they could dismiss if he or she did not perform. This reason was advanced for proposing that a hundred and fifty of the members of the National Assembly should be elected by the Westminster-first-past-the-post system and only fifty by proportional representation. Two questions arise. Firstly, why did the Constitutional Commission not reverse the configuration, namely have five representatives elected in the Westminster system per province and a hundred and fifty elected by proportional representation? Secondly, given that very few Parliamentarians, in terms of the existing constitution have been effective representatives (my MP in Bulawayo South has not held a single public meeting since the last election) why is it that there is nothing in the constitution which enables the electorate to make their Westminster-system-elected Member of Parliament accountable as was demanded by Zimbabweans?

    I am afraid the answer to these two questions is simply that the introduction of these particular proportional representation provisions is a further conjuring trick. In other words a facade of proportional representation has been introduced but the reality is that the proposed system will probably not change the composition of Parliament greatly. There will be some opposition representation in Parliament. But will there be a reasonably proportionate representation? I very much doubt it.

    Conclusion

    Space does not permit me to elaborate on further disturbing provisions contained in the proposed new constitution. Suffice it to say that the entire process has been a smokescreen and all that we are now presented with is a cunningly presented disguise of the ZANU (PF) proposals prepared in August. It is interesting to compare the two documents, namely the ZANU (PF) proposal and the proposed new constitution. In many respects the original ZANU (PF) proposals represent a summary of the new constitution. After all it was only in the ZANU (PF) proposals that we found the recommendation for an Executive President with the power to appoint a Prime Minster, it was only in that document that we had a Senate proposed comprising sixty members, ten of whom were chiefs, and it was only in that document that we had proposed a National Assembly of two hundred members. The proposed constitution is merely an elaboration on the original ZANU (PF) draft. It does not meaningfully separate powers, nor does it effectively reduce the excessive powers of the existing Presidency. Indeed if anything it further blurs the separation of powers, weakens the Judiciary and strengthens the Executive.

    In all the circumstances it is now incumbent on us as Zimbabweans to prepare to vote no in the forthcoming referendum so that we can all give the lie to the propaganda that this new proposed constitution represents the will of the people. No doubt ZANU (PF) is relying on rushing through a Referendum Bill which will ensure that the referendum is controlled by the Registrar General, using the existing voters’ roll and its existing control over the electronic media. No doubt ZANU (PF) is relying on apathy prevailing so that it can secure a “majority” vote from a minority of Zimbabweans who will succumb to Government propaganda. It is imperative that Zimbabweans are not apathetic and that we turn out in vast numbers to vote. Strong economies are built on good constitutions. The proposed constitution is not a good constitution. It is merely one designed to serve the interests of a tiny and very corrupt ruling elite. If we are to lay the foundations for a State we can all be proud of it is imperative that we do not allow the elite’s Machiavellian schemes to succeed.

    Posted in Articles | Leave a comment