‘Key lessons have been learnt’: Shock as ZANU PF candidate loses by-election

By David Coltart | Published October 24, 2016

News24

Correspondent

24th October 2016

Harare – Just what are the “key lessons” that President Robert Mugabe’s party has learnt from its shock loss of a by-election this weekend?

Local Government Minister Saviour Kasukuwere confirmed in a tweet that Zanu-PF had lost the Norton constituency – despite the 5 000 free housing stands handed out to youths on the eve of the election and a number of threats.

“Norton [constituency] has eluded us. Key lessons have been learnt. Thank you to our supporters for coming out and voting for our candidate,” Kasukuwere said.

The seat was taken by independent candidate Temba Mliswa, who won 8 927 votes. Zanu-PF’s Ronald Chidudza won 6 192 votes.

The opposition Movement for Democratic Change did not field a candidate.

Analysts and Zimbabweans have been asking just what this loss means to the ruling party and whether it is a litmus test for polls in 2018.

Though physically he appears increasingly doddery, Mugabe, 92, has said he intends to stand for re-election in those polls.

“Gift” for rival faction leader

If he wins, it will be his eighth term in office.

Though a few Zimbabwe watchers wondered if Zanu-PF “allowed” itself to lose the seat to lull the opposition into a false sense of security, many dispute that. Given the stands that were handed out and Kasukuwere’s confident prediction of a “resounding victory” there seems little doubt that Mugabe’s party fully intended to win this seat, which fell vacant when Zanu-PF’s Chris Mutsvangwa was expelled earlier this year.

Lawyer and ex-minister David Coltart went as far as to say that Zanu-PF “threw the kitchen sink” at the vote, so desperate was the party to win.

Significantly many are seeing this loss as a blow particularly for Zanu-PF’s G40 faction, of which Kasukuwere (and under-fire higher education minister Jonathan Moyo) is a member.

UK-based Zimbabwe journalist Lance Guma said Mliswa’s victory should be seen as a “gift” for rival faction leader Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa, who did not want G40 to gain an advantage by winning another parliamentary seat.

Guma said the victory did not mean Zanu-PF would lose the 2018 elections.

Lessons learnt

He wrote on Facebook: “Mliswa won because Mnangagwa allowed him to, just to spite Kasukuwere and the G40 faction.”

Mliswa, a former personal trainer, is himself a controversial character. He was a member of Zanu-PF until 2015, when he was expelled from the party. A former MP for Hurungwe, northern Zimbabwe, he was accused of violence against the MDC during his time in Zanu-PF. Because of that he’s still viewed with suspicion by some in the party.

However, the opposition does seem to have viewed Mliswa’s victory with relief, with MDC secretary general Douglas Mwonzora tweeting his congratulations to him.

Should Kasukuwere’s acknowledgement of “lessons learnt” be seen in an ominous light, as some feel given the ruling party’s history of intimidation (and worse)?

Exactly what he means remains unclear. But as Mliswa and his supporters celebrated in Norton, one thing is clear: Zanu-PF’s loss in this key constituency will have consequences, both in and outside the ruling party.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

‘THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES’ 50 Years of Tyranny in Zimbabwe’ by David Coltart. A contrarian view.

By David Coltart | Published October 22, 2016

Africa Unauthorised http://africaunauthorised.com/?p=2638

By Hannes Wessels

22nd October 2016

David Coltart is a man who I have long held in high regard. Courageous and principled, he has been at the fore in the dangerous struggle for meaningful change in Zimbabwe and all of us who want better for Zimbabwe are indebted to him. However, reading his account of events in the country and his opinion of what went wrong in Rhodesia I must beg to differ and here are some of the reasons.

The title, ‘THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES, 50 Years of Tyranny in Zimbabwe’ sets the tone of his position immediately in that it signals his view that Ian Smith, like Mugabe was a ‘tyrant’. Incidentally, Smith the ‘tyrant’, be reminded dear reader, fought real tyranny as a fighter pilot in WW II so I assume it’s safe to say he was only later transformed into the noxious individual we learn about in the bookThe Struggle Continues.

In my understanding a tyrant rules with brutality and cruelty, lacks any right to rule and generally craves power for selfish ends which almost always includes the amassing of personal wealth at the expense of the populace. I knew the man well and simply don’t accept Ian Smith was a cruel man or that he ever craved power for his own ends. On the contrary, I believe he cared very sincerely about his people and to his dying day he was anxiously looking for ways to save his countrymen from the hardships of life under true tyranny. Interestingly, one of his early speeches as a young parliamentarian was on behalf of African women who, he believed, were cruelly disposed of by their fathers who sold them into a form of sexual slavery with the highest bidder succeeding under the ‘lobola’ system. He found this repugnant and sought to soften it but was advised the practice was too deep-rooted in African culture to be interfered with.

Tyrants are invariably loathed by the majority of their subjects and this appears true in the case of Robert Mugabe who travels, (on those rare occasions when he travels by road) with a cavalcade that includes armoured vehicles, troop carriers and sometimes air-support. This is because he fears the wrath of the people he has misgoverned. In office, Ian Smith, on occasion went to work unaccompanied on a bicycle. When by car, he liked to drive himself. His security was often little more than a single bodyguard carrying a pistol. This was the lifestyle of a man who held no fear of his people and that was because he knew the majority, while they may not have agreed with him, respected him. One of his last conversations with Mugabe was a challenge to him to walk the streets of Harare with him without protection. He never heard from Mugabe again. In his dotage he told me he was becoming a tad reluctant to visit the shops because he was finding being mobbed by the Africans a little overwhelming and physically daunting.

In the course of the narrative the author speaks justifiably highly of the African policemen with whom he served and refers to their courage, competence and loyalty. These men, unlike the author, were volunteers, not conscripts and they provided roughly 70% of the manpower for the country’s armed forces. Why would all these good Africans have volunteered to serve a tyrant one must ask.

While David and most of the world disapproved of what he stood for Ian Smith did not use power to enrich himself. He was a frugal man who loved the simple pleasures that life offers. He loved his wife, he was a devoted father and step-father, he loved sport and he loved his country. He treated his personal African staff with decency, kindness and respect and most served him with devotion. Not even his most outspoken critics, and that includes Mugabe, have ever accused him of corruption. Nor for that matter, have they accused him of running an incompetent administration. Rhodesia was, most agree, the best governed country in Africa and one of the best governed countries in the world. David alludes to the fact that this excellence in governance was ‘efficient .. for whites at least’. This is not true, the country ran efficiently in the interests of all which explains the massive population growth that occurred under European rule.

Tyrants also don’t relinquish power easily; Ian Smith did. Coltart blames Smith for the failure of the ‘Tiger’ and ‘Fearless’ talks. Harold Wilson, we are led to believe, was the voice of reason, Smith the reckless extremist. We now know Harold Wilson, if not a full Soviet agent, was certainly in the thrall of the Soviets and his Labour Party was in receipt of strong support from the Kremlin so Wilson’s credibility and real intentions, at this juncture is worthy of closer scrutiny. What we are also not told is that Smith’s big problem with the Wilson terms was he did not trust the British leader on his demand that Rhodesia return to legality through an interim transfer of power that would have seen a British governor take temporary power. Smith did not trust the British to honour their commitments in the event they took back direct control of the country. His exact fears were realised fifteen years later when Soames took over from Muzorewa and reneged on virtually everything agreed at Lancaster House leading to Mugabe taking power.

Later, in 1972, Smith was happy to surrender power on terms agreed with Alec Douglas-Home. This process was derailed through no fault of the Rhodesian premier’s despite the writer’s assertion that the ‘RF did much to scupper its acceptance’. David gives us no indication of what the RF did in this regard and in my recollection Smith was very anxious to get the ‘Pearce Commission’ on the ground and running before the agreement was derailed by radicals looking for a more extreme solution.

In 1974 he acceded to John Vorster’s misguided ‘Détente’ initiative aimed at ‘majority rule’ and he agreed to the power transfer foisted on him by Kissinger in 1976. These initiatives came to nought through no fault of Ian Smith’s. He then organised a democratic transfer of power to Bishop Abel Muzorewa in 1979 in probably the only free election ever held in the country. If this is a tyrant in play then David and I have different dictionaries.

David repeatedly lauds former premier Garfield Todd as a visionary who was an early and committed Mugabe supporter. We are reminded that Todd admonished the Europeans for being ‘fear-ridden neurotics’. Well yes he’s right, many Europeans were indeed afraid that power might be transferred to a despot and it looks like they were right and Todd was wrong. Unsurprisingly, David chooses to ignore that. He recalls with a measure of contempt Smith’s reference in his UDI speech to the battle against the ‘forces of evil’. Well again, I must ask the author if Smith was right or wrong when we look at what has transpired. Or would he suggest the incumbents are a ‘force for good’?

We are also repeatedly referred to Ken Flower as another man of ‘moderation’ in contrast to the ‘immoderation’ repeatedly reserved to describe Smith. Well, we now know, almost beyond any doubt, that Ken Flower was a traitor working to undermine the government he swore to serve who was tasked by his Whitehall and Intelligence masters with the tricky task of manipulating events to chart a course that would see Mugabe acquire power. A cunning, capable and convincing operative the British chose their sleuth well and his success in this mission has visited misery on millions.

Covering the war years David leads the reader to believe both sides were equally guilty of egregious misconduct and of committing atrocities. Again, I believe this is a gross distortion of the truth. As an RLI trooper I remember clearly, a corporal being charged for purloining a transistor radio following a contact when a village accommodating the enemy was attacked in the course of a ‘Fire-Force’ operation. The villagers had been providing succour to the enemy but this was not considered an acceptable justification for looting and the man was reduced in rank as punishment. Such were the strictures in play within a fighting battalion that acquired renown for aggression leading to the elimination of many of the enemy but prided itself on professionalism. While I have no doubt there were acts of brutality in the field perpetrated by Rhodesian soldiers I think it is fair to say the security forces of the day conducted themselves with restraint in with regard to the civilians caught in the crunch of war. This was certainly not the case with the enemy which, history clearly shows, attacked far more civilian targets than military ones.

While I was dismayed by what I read in the above regard I know I’m but one of a tiny minority who lived through the same time and in the same place, who also remembers all too clearly what happened. For the vast majority, particularly that legion of liberals around the world who worked so assiduously to end European rule this book will have come as a huge relief. Most of them have gone quiet of late having run out of excuses and any remotely cogent defence of their earlier endeavours. David has given them something to cheer about even if it’s based on distortions and selective reporting but these days, let’s face it nobody cares as long as we can sit back and blame the ‘usual suspects’; that’s the Europeans and their ‘tyrannical’ leaders.

The article was followed by the following exchange between Hannes Wessels and David Coltart:

David Coltart on 25. October 2016 at 9:39 said:
This is an interesting critique Hannes but it does leave me with a sense that you haven’t even read the whole book, just its title. If you were balanced you would have mentioned the positive things I said about Smith, for example that he wanted the Tiger proposals but that he was blocked by the extreme right wing within the RF. Also you dont even allude to my meetings with him. You accuse me of “distortions and selective reporting” but isnt that the very trap you have fallen into yourself? One final thing – even if one doesnt get beyond just the title ,it says “50 years of tyranny”, not 50 years of tyrants. I never accused Smith of being a tyrant but there is no doubt by all objective criteria that for the black majority population RF rule was tyranny. It may have been an efficient tyranny, it may have been a far less corrupt tyranny than what we endure today, but it was still tyranny. Best wishes, David (the self serving prat)

Reply

Managing Editor Hannes Wessels on 25. October 2016 at 11:14 said:
David you are right I did not read the whole book but I read enough to not want to carry on because I could see this was going to be a very unbalanced account and I’m afraid I got quite angry. Your basic premise is that the Europeans are essentially to blame for the Zimbabwean tragedy and that is what upsets me because I think most Europeans who lived in that country, including Ian Smith, tried very hard to make it work for everyone but thanks to the liberal/progressive global media with the BBC at the fore, the other side of the story was never told and you continue in that vein. If we had been given anything like a fair hearing and judged honestly and empirically surely we would not have been attacked and destroyed as we were. We Europeans all wanted to stay and work with our African compatriots and make it the greatest country in Africa which would have brought prosperity to all but we were defeated by people and politicians around the world who believed the big lie. The ‘big lie’ was that the European ‘settlers/colonists’ were avaricious oppressors enriching themselves at the expense of the vanquished Africans. I’m afraid you do fine job of perpetuating that view and I reject it.
You apply the same logic to the debacle in the Congo which saw the Belgians slaughtered and put to flight following their ‘liberation’.The reader is immediately reminded that this was on the back of Belgian brutality so in a nuanced way they (and that includes the missionaries who were murdered) are to blame. No mention of all that the Belgians did to try and develop the country through roads, hospitals and schools. This is exactly what the multitude of liberal apologists want to hear because they don’t know how else to explain that fact that the side they backed so energetically turned out to be such atrocious rulers.
The title says it all David. If a ‘tyranny’ was in place only one man was responsible and that’s Ian Smith and that’s what most of your readers and I suspect your publisher want to hear. And I’m not sure you are right when you say you believe the ‘majority’ believed it was a ‘tyranny’. I too spent much of my life discussing politics with many Africans right across the spectrum and while I clearly recall criticism I do not ever remember the ‘majority’ sentiment as you describe it.
I am sure you have made a useful contribution to our history but I remain convinced you would have done yourself and your countrymen a huge favour by being more forthright about the other side of the story.
Best regards, Hannes

David Coltart on 25. October 2016 at 11:49 said:
Hannes. Thank you for your reply. We will have to agree to disagree on this. In the interests of balance and transparency I have posted your review on my Facebook page and will in due course put it up on my web site. I respect your right to hold the views you do, even though I disagree with many of them. I hope this finds you well. Kind regards, David

David Coltart on 25. October 2016 at 11:53 said:
Hannes – just one final point, not about Zimbabwe but about the Congo. Have you ever read King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hochschild ? It is an outstanding book which lays bare everything that the Belgians did in the Congo. The truth is hard to stomach but it is truth.

Managing Editor on 25. October 2016 at 13:16 said:
Yes I did Dave but again I found it unbalanced. The Belgians did wrong but they also did an awful lot right in the Congo but the full story, like ours, was never really told. And of course look what happened after they left. Arguably the richest country on the planet is close to the poorest and millions live a life of misery and fear. I’m not sure that would be the case if the Belgians had hung around?

Reply
Managing Editor on 25. October 2016 at 13:11 said:
Thanks David I appreciate you taking this in the spirit you do. I know this is a tricky subject and I too respect your views. I’m pleased we can have this discussion without rancour and wish you everything of the best.
Regards Hannes

Posted in Articles, Blog | Leave a comment

Cephas Msipa: One of Zimbabwe’s greatest patriots

By David Coltart | Published October 20, 2016

Financial Gazette

By Senator David Coltart

20th October 2016

CEPHAS Msipa’s death this week has robbed Zimbabwe of one of her greatest statesmen and patriots. Although I first only got to meet him in 1994, he became a valued friend, a wise counsellor and an inspirational figure in my life.

Although Msipa has captured the headlines in recent years for his frank public advice he has given to President Robert Mugabe about the machinations which have engulfed ZANU-PF, my own view is that his bravest actions were those when he spoke out against Gukurahundi in the 1980s. These are documented in his outstanding memoir In Pursuit of Freedom and Justice, published last year.

In late April 1983 Msipa (then a ZAPU cabinet minister) was approached by ZANU-PF governor of Matabeleland North Jacob Mudenda, who asked him to arrange a meeting with President Mugabe so that rural district chairmen from the province could appeal to him regarding the “intolerable cruelty people were suffering”. Msipa asked Emmerson Mnangagwa to arrange a meeting, which he did. The meeting was held on the sidelines of the opening of the 1983 International Trade Fair at State House, Bulawayo.

A five-hour session ensued, during which the chairmen of Binga, Hwange, Tsholotsho, Lupane, Nkayi and Bubi districts “spoke in graphic detail of the atrocities”.

According to Msipa, President Mugabe agreed in the meeting to replace the Fifth Brigade with a police support unit. This was the first time that President Mugabe had heard from people within his own Cabinet regarding the atrocities taking place.

At the time, the late Joshua Nkomo, having narrowly escaped assassination himself, was in exile and many ZAPU leaders were in detention.

Msipa would have known that as a ZAPU member he would have been under close scrutiny and threat, but despite this he made sure that President Mugabe heard about what was happening.

Again in late March 1984, some ZAPU central committee members, including Welshman Mabhena, approached Msipa imploring him to arrange a meeting with President Mugabe to draw attention to the “continuing atrocities” taking place in Matabeleland.

As had happened in April 1983 the meeting was held at State House in Bulawayo, but this time it was much larger.

Msipa recorded that it was “as if a rally had been called” with people arriving at State House on bicycles and on foot.

Once again President Mugabe heard chilling evidence for two hours from survivors as many spoke, “some with tears running down their cheeks, saying how many relatives had been lost at the hands of soldiers”, how “friends were detained for no reason, tortured, executed”.

Msipa recorded that after listening to their impassioned pleas, President Mugabe said he “was sorry to hear what was happening” but also implored people to stop “supporting dissidents”.

Whether this meeting influenced the decision to lift the curfew imposed on Matabeleland South, which happened on April 10, 1984, we shall never know, but that is what happened.

Coincidentally, the numbers of people detained at Bhalagwe concentration camp near Kezi started to reduce and by the end of May the mass detentions ended.

Shortly afterwards, in mid 1984, the Fifth Brigade was withdrawn from active duty and underwent five months of “infantry training” at Mbalabala barracks near Esigodini.

Once again it was Msipa who bravely spoke truth to power.

In doing so he placed himself under even greater suspicion, leading to his dismissal from Cabinet at the end of 1984.

President Mugabe used ZANU-PF Senator Ndlovu’s murder in Beitbridge in November 1984 as the reason for dismissing the remaining two ZAPU ministers in his cabinet, Msipa and John Nkomo.

Msipa recounted that shortly before Senator Ndlovu’s murder, President Mugabe had given him the floor in cabinet to speak about people in Matabeleland “being massacred”.

Msipa spoke for an hour, providing Cabinet with “a list of incidents”.

Curiously, although some ministers were provocative, President Mugabe “didn’t enter the discussion”; he just “listened attentively” without getting angry.

When President Mugabe later fired Msipa, he explained that it was because while Msipa and Nkomo gave the impression that they were working with Cabinet, they were “in fact secretly supporting dissidents”, a claim Msipa vehemently denied.

It was a decade after these momentous events when I first got to meet Msipa. In early September 1994 Msipa and I travelled around Germany as a guest of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Our hosts were particularly concerned to show our diverse group of Zimbabweans the stark contrast between East and West Germany soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

One of our meetings there was with Hans Herzberg, the chief constable of the Free State of Saxony, who described how the East German police, the Stasi, had destroyed families and sown so much suspicion among people.

In the interests of transparency they had made all Stasi’s files on some 12 million East German citizens available, and many were shocked when they inspected their own files.

One husband discovered his wife had been spying on him for 12 years; a daughter found out her father had been reporting on her for years.

I wrote at the time: “A culture of fear pervaded the entire nation and there was much to be scared about”. The Stasi stories poignantly reflected Zimbabwe, a subject our Zimbabwean group discussed that evening.

A strong bond developed among us, particularly between me and Msipa who, despite his high position in ZANU-PF, remained a good friend ever since.

What is truly remarkable about Msipa is that he has remained consistent throughout his life.

He opposed the brutality and abuse of power of the Rhodesian Front and, although a member of ZANU-PF after the Unity Accord, never allowed his membership of that party to get in the way of speaking out against injustice.

As governor of the Midlands province, during the chaotic years after the turn of the century, he did all in his power to ameliorate the catastrophic consequences of ZANU-PF’s violent land reform programme.

His view was that, despite his deep rooted concern about the manner in which the land reform programme was implemented, he should remain at his post to inject as much sanity he could.

Another outstanding feature of Msipa was his faithfulness towards his wife, family and friends.

His marriage to his late wife Charlotte was an inspiration to many people.

It is no surprise that his dying wish was to be buried next to her in Gweru rather than at Heroes Acre in Harare.

Being a modest, humble man, Msipa always put his family and friends ahead of political status.

I experienced that personally; despite the fact that I have been vilified over the years by ZANU-PF, he never made a secret of our friendship.

That was epitomised by his attendance at the Harare launch of my own book in July this year.

He attended despite the fact that he was already sickly; a mark of the wonderful man he was.

Sadly that was the last time I saw him.

Zimbabwe has lost a great champion of democracy, decency and tolerance.

Our nation, which is at such a treacherous juncture in her history, can sorely afford to lose patriots of his caliber.

We can but pray that his example will inspire us all to emulate him in future.

Rest in peace, Cephas.

David Coltart is a former education minister.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Why the allegations of sexual assault levelled against Donald Trump should concern us all

By David Coltart | Published October 15, 2016

Senator David Coltart

Blog

15th October 2016

In December 1983 the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace instructed me to record statements from hundreds of women victims of Gukurahundi at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral in Bulawayo. I record the event at page 151 of my book “The Struggle Continues : 50 years of tyranny in Zimbabwe “.

The following are two excerpts:

“Sitting at a table in the hall one woman after another told me how her husband, father, brother, son, uncle, grandfather, nephew had been gunned down before their very eyes..”

“Independent verification of a story gives it credence and taking scores of statements individually from women hailing from all over Matabeleland North left me in no doubt about the veracity of what they were alleging. The systematic and sustained nature of the abuse, which lasted several months and occurred in different areas hundreds of kilometres apart, removed any doubt ..(in my mind that this was true).”

In other words it was the consistency of the allegations made by many different women from different areas, at different times, that convinced me that what they were saying was true.
It is in this context that I have listened with growing incredulity to Donald Trump’s denials that he is guilty of sexual assault against the several women who have released statements this week alleging that Trump abused them. Whilst obviously sexual assault cannot be compared to genocide, both are crimes, and in both assessments have to be made regarding whether the allegations are likely to be true or not.

Trump argues that there is a conspiracy against him; that somehow the US media and the Clinton campaign have coordinated these revelations to smear his candidacy. However from what I have seen on television the allegations have been made by, so far, some 9 women spread right across America, concerning incidents going back in some instances over 30 years. Some have got their lawyers to assist them deliver their statements, and when they have done so many have been tearful and obviously deeply troubled. It appears that none of the women know each other; the have seemingly spontaneously spoken out, gaining courage from other women who have been bold enough to speak out.

Trump bare denials yesterday are to be expected – he can hardly admit to any of these allegations because his candidacy would end instantly. In other words he has no option but to deny them. Some of the reasons he has advanced however are ridiculous – the one that they are “seeking publicity” is particularly obnoxious. Why would any woman want to reveal such an embarrassing episode in their lives?

Trump and his supporters have however raised one legitimate question regarding why these women have only come forward now, a month away from the US election. It seems to me that there are two possible reasons why they have only come forward now. One is that it was in reaction to his own taped admissions that he groped women, and his subsequent denial in Sunday’s debate that he had ever actually sexually assaulted any women, when he said it was just “locker room banter”. Trump’s oldest accuser, Jennifer Lee, seems to have been the boldest and she clearly spoke out in response to Trump’s denial. The second reason seems to be the courage that other women have derived from Ms Lee’s bravery. It appears that they have kept their secret for years but have realised that they will not be ridiculed now that others have come forward to corroborate.

Some will say that I am wrong to find Trump guilty before he has been proven guilty, and I accept that no court has proved him guilty. However I have seen enough evidence, including Trump’s own statement, to convince me that Trump would have an exceptionally hard time defending himself if charged.

This is not the first time that women have waited years before they have spoken out against sexual abuse perpetrated against them. The two best examples of this concern Bill Cosby and British BBC celebrity the late Jimmy Saville. Both these men got away with their actions for decades; in Saville’s case it took his death to encourage women to come forward and speak about what was done to them. The fact is that women the world over are usually deeply ashamed and/or fearful by sexual assault perpetrated against them and keep quiet. That is reason why many rapes are left unreported, in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the world. Many women fear that if they speak out in isolation they will be disbelieved and ridiculed. When some are brave enough to speak out the floodgates open.

That is what I saw in St Mary’s Cathedral in December 1983, albeit in entirely different circumstances. Individual women who otherwise would have ben petrified to speak out, took courage from the presence of others.

Why am I taking so much time to write about an election in another country which I will not vote in? The first reason is that in Zimbabwe we have been fighting for democracy and truth to prevail. We have pointed to democracies elsewhere in the world as good examples, and have argued that Zimbabwe needs the same. We have spoken out against our own leaders guilty of criminal conduct and said that they are not fit for office. If we keep silent about obvious flaws in other electoral processes that in turn undermines our ability to criticise our own electoral processes and political leaders.

The second reason is because of the women who have blessed my own life – my beloved late maternal grandmother Ada and mother Nora, my darling wife, my precious daughters and daughters in law, and the numerous amazing women colleagues I work with in politics and law. The thought of any of them being subjected to similar abuse is anathema. Sexual abuse is a worldwide plague – if the leader of the world’s most powerful democracy is a sexual predator how will that influence the way women are treated in the world? If men the world over don’t speak out against this type of conduct what does that say about our own attitude to women?

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

The story behind the ‘compensation’ deal between Mujuru & evicted white farmer Guy Watson-Smith

By David Coltart | Published October 11, 2016

The Zimbabwean

By Violet Gonda

11th October 2016

When Guy Watson-Smith lost his family farm at the height of Zimbabwe’s controversial and often violent land grab, he could scarcely have imagined that one day he would be sitting in the same room with the new, powerful owner of the farm he loved so much.

The courts had failed to ensure that he was compensated for the loss of the family farm to General Solomon Mujuru, former commander of the Zimbabwean army.

Watson-Smith also had to watch his community disintegrate in the ongoing violence in most districts where white farmers operated. He comforted Alan Dunn, a neighboring farmer and close friend as he died after a beating from war veterans in 2000.

The courts did tell Mujuru to return all the farm equipment and move-ables on the Watson-Smith farm, in Mashonaland East. Eventually, Mujuru did hand back most, but not all of the household goods, not the equipment or cattle nor wild life, nor the proceeds from the valuable tobacco crop which had been financed by Watson-Smith and was sold on the auctions in Harare in March 2002 for more then US$700 000.
Solomon Mujuru told friends and associates at that time he planned to take over this farm because he believed his ancestors came from the district before whites arrived more than 100 years ago. Mujuru had gone to war against white-ruled Rhodesia. And as Robert Mugabe told the BBC in Mozambique in 1977, thousands of young people went to war against Rhodesia to get the vote and get their land back.

But General Mujuru reportedly believed in property rights in independent Zimbabwe and he bought two farms near Shamva and allegedly paid off bank loans on both of them. Later he also bought a farm in Ruwa, his wife told the media on several occasions.

Watson-Smith lost everything – the farm he had owned for 20 years, the much loved home he developed for his family, his investment in all the farm buildings, the fences, dams, irrigation equipment, workers’ village, piping, fertiliser, etc. Even the family pets, such as the horses did not escape and had to be shot.

Speaking on the Hot Seat programme in London in the last week, Solomon Mujuru’s widow, former Vice President Joice Mujuru insisted she didn’t invade the farm, and said the Watson-Smith’s farm. Alamein, was taken by her husband. Although she revealed both her family’s Shamva farms were taken during the post 2000 land grab.

The 1400 hectare Alamein farm (a.k.a Ruzambo) is situated in the Beatrice district Months before Mujuru ousted him, Watson-Smith had finished paying off all debts he accumulated after 20 years of farming. He also had more then 300 cattle and 600 wild animals which he brought on to the farm in the last few years before he was evicted. He was one of Zimbabwe’s top tobacco farmers.

When challenged if it was fair that her family cashed in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the sale of the tobacco crop they had not grown, Mujuru said it was “not fair” and revealed she had been “looking” for the evicted farmer. She had also reached out to former opposition lawmaker David Coltart to help locate him “because I wanted to give him what is due to him.”

“I am a reputable businessperson. I am a chicken farmer, and it is hard,” she said. “I am ready to work and pay him.”

One of Joice Mujuru’s associates did contact Watson-Smith in 2013 and asked him how much he would sell the farm for. Watson-Smith gave him the sum provided by the Valuation Consortium (VALCON) in Harare, which has professionally valued nearly all the white-owned farms which were taken since 2000.

Watson-Smith heard no more.

Perhaps Mujuru did not know about this approach to Watson-Smith who has used the same legal firm in Harare for the last 15 years and is in contact with the Commercial Farmers’ Union, and VALCON.

Watson-Smith, was forced to leave farming behind in Zimbabwe at the end of 2001 and started a new life near Nice, in the south of France, and has developed a successful real estate business in one of the richest parts of the world.

Hot Seat tracked him down shortly after the interview with Mujuru and set up the symbolic first meeting between the so-called farm invader and the evicted white farmer.

He flew into London, with his son, Lao, the day after Hot Seat interviewed Mujuru. He wanted to meet her, but he was anxious, too. He had taken the legal route since he had to leave the farm but had not even received the damages he was awarded by the High Court, and like the majority of evicted farmers, he had not been paid any compensation, for land or improvements.

The idea, after so many years and after so much bitterness, that these two Zimbabweans who come from such different backgrounds could meet and, in theory sort it out between them, was an irresistible story for any journalist covering the ongoing trauma in Zimbabwe.

The meeting was held at the expensive Millennium Hotel in Mayfair, where Mujuru was staying. She was in the UK, at the invitation of the Royal Society of International Affairs at Chatham House, London, to drum up support for her new political party – the Zimbabwe People First party.

The 61-year-old was thrown out of the ZANU PF party two years ago after she was accused of plotting to topple 92-year-old Mugabe.

Watson-Smith was exhausted after arriving in London, not least because he had travelled through the night from France to meet Mujuru. And he had never met her before and he said memories of his lost home, lost friends, and lost life in Zimbabwe, flooded over him as he arrived in London.

All previous interactions he had were with Solomon Mujuru who died in a mysterious fire in Watson-Smith’s old home, on the farm in 2012.

Mujuru offered him tea, and the three, including Watson-Smith’s son discussed many aspects of Alamein farm, its progress and the welfare of the workers left behind after the invasion.

Watson-Smith said: “It’s been a long 15 years since we left the farm and it’s been hard. My family started again in a new country from nothing. And we have pursued very slowly and very quietly through the courts particularly the moveable assets which we were forced to leave behind.”

Joice Mujuru said her People First party believes this meeting was an important step in establishing precedent, and the re-establishment of the natural rule of law and accountability in Zimbabwe since the land invasions.

“The meeting is to try and solve this issue amicably. I can’t hide my excitement because I have been longing to talk to Watson about this land issue, which I now enjoy very much and I must now do my uttermost best to put the land to good use.”

Mujuru said issues of reconciliation shouldn’t just be rhetorical. “I have a party that has a policy on practical reconciliation and we must show it.”

They agreed to extend the meeting to the following day and to include their lawyers in Harare to work out the draft agreement and to make arrangements to settle the damages awarded Watson-Smith last year.

“What we have achieved at this juncture is a signed ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ detailing & confirming acceptance of the events that led to the occupation of Alamein (a.k.a Ruzambo in some articles), coupled with a commitment to progress towards compensation discussions via our respective legal teams,” Watson-Smith said.

He explained this agreement was not about compensation for the land nor the ‘improvements’ on the farm such as homes and buildings, farming infrastructure, dams, plantations, cleared land, fencing and conservation works.

“It concerned solely the theft of ‘Moveable Assets’ (vehicles, tractors & equipment, livestock, game, the crop in the land, etc). The High Court of Zimbabwe established the legal values of the moveable assets in an order for damages dated late 2015, and that forms the basis of our ‘MOU’ with her,” Watson-Smith explained.

The court rulings dating from 2002 and in 2015, ordering the return of Watson-Smith’s assets and payment of compensation for damages, totals US$1,469,440 plus compound interest.

Questions remain about where Mujuru will find the money, which is estimated now to be more than US$2m, with interest and Mujuru has also accepted to pay Watson-Smith’s legal fees.

Zimbabwe’s land question remains unresolved but Hot Seat listeners should recall that the 2013 constitution says that the UK must pay for the land taken from white farmers, and the government will pay for the “improvements.’

Earlier this year the government’s lands’ department met with members of the Commercial Farmers Union, and VALCON and all sides restated that compensation must be achieved. But the reality is that the government of Zimbabwe says it has no money to even begin to pay out, but has recently established a land commission and is allegedly valuing farms although it has no qualified valuers, nor documentation it needs to assess what was on the farms prior to land invasions.

The statistics are important too. So far, VALCON, using qualified surveyors, has valued 5000 seized farms, or title deeds, owned by 3000 white farmers on seven million hectares.

This is the vast majority of farms taken since 2000. Among those valuations is one for Guy Watson-Smith’s property.

At the end of the discussion with Mujuru, the former farmer pointed out that no agreement for compensation for the land and the ‘improvements’ on Alamein farm has yet been reached and it is not expected any time soon.

Since the constitution was changed in 2005, all land taken from white farmers since 2000 is state owned.

Watson-Smith says he believes the British should pay out evicted white farmers for the land taken from them from 2000. “It would be a small investment by the British and would be of such an advantage to Zimbabwe and future trade in the subcontinent. I wish the British would take a different approach and I believe it would help the process of reconciliation enormously.”

Full Hot Seat Interview with Joice Mujuru can be accessed via this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ko0gIc7z7g

To contact this journalist email violet@violetgonda.com or follow on twitter:@violetgonda – See more at: www.violetgonda.com

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Cyril Ndebele dies

By David Coltart | Published October 8, 2016

Newsday

By Linda Chinobva

8th October 2016

FORMER Speaker of Parliament and PF Zapu stalwart Cyril Ndebele has died.

Ndebele passed on yesterday morning in Bulawayo. The cause of his death could not be ascertained.

Zapu deputy national spokesperson Iphithule Maphosa said Ndebele immensely contributed to the growth of the party, both before and after the 1987 Unity Accord with Zanu PF.

“Zapu joins the Ndebele family and the nation in mourning the passing-on of the great leader and lawyer. We, however, take comfort in the legacy he leaves behind — that of selfless and upright leadership and service to both Zapu and Zimbabwe,” Maphosa said.

“Advocate Ndebele leaves a rich legacy of leadership both in Zapu and the nation, a history we will forever cherish, emulate and safeguard by advancing his long held beliefs of good political and leadership practices as espoused in the mother party, Zapu.”

Former Education minister David Coltart also confirmed Ndebele’s death in a Facebook post.

“I very much regret to report that former Speaker of Parliament and lawyer Cyril Ndebele died in Bulawayo this morning. He was a wise and fair man,” Coltart wrote.

At the time of his death, Ndebele was chairperson of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission that was sworn in by President Robert Mugabe in February this year.

Ndebele became Parliament Speaker in 1995. He fell out of favour with Mugabe when he issued a parliamentary certificate advising Zanu PF that it should not discipline then ruling party Masvingo chairperson Dzikamai Mavhaire for asking Mugabe to step down. Mugabe called Ndebele a traitor and replaced him in 2000 with now Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

Ndebele joined the African National Congress in South Africa in 1960 while a student at the University of Natal. He acquired a law degree from Queens University in Belfast, Ireland, in 1970 and on return to Zimbabwe became chairperson of Zapu.

In 1975, he became Zapu’s United Kingdom and European representative. He was involved in the historic Geneva, Malta and Lancaster House negotiations that led to independence.

At independence, Ndebele went into private practice and also became a local councillor in Bulawayo.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe – India unlikely to back Robert Mugabe’s plan to pull out of the United Nations

By David Coltart | Published September 29, 2016

Blastingnews.com

29th September 2016

By Jane Powers

In a press briefing earlier this week, Rungsung Masakui, the Indian Ambassador to #Zimbabwe said in a statement that #India is unlikely to join into Mugabe’s call for a new body to be formed independently of the #United Nations. “All Africa” reported on 24 September that upon arrival at Harare after the United Nations General Assembly earlier this month, that African and Asian countries would pull out of the UN and form their own “splinter body.” India was specifically mentioned in Mugabe’s announcement that took place at the Harare International Airport.

Mugabe’s mention of India

Mugabe mentioned India towards the end of his statement, saying, “They (UN) must not cry foul when countries from these regions pull out and form our own Union,” and “The Union will have countries such as China, India, and other Asian countries, and then we have to see that which countries will remain in the United Nations.”

The sudden announcement by Mugabe was a bit of a shock as Masakui pointed out that Mugabe did not “raise these issues at the United Nations General Assembly.” However, “News Day” reported that whilst India did not want to talk about it very much, that in a theoretical scenario, India would probably not leave the UN to join the proposed splinter body and would more likely “continue to call for reform of the UNSC from within the structures of the UN.”

Mugabe’s destructive capacity

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for Mugabe to pull out of world recognized bodies. Back in 2003 in a fit of rage Mugabe withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth when the organization suspended the country over vote-rigging and human rights abuses. Referring to that pull-out as Mugabe’s destructive capacity, Former Minister for Education, David Coltart said of the UN split announcement to “The New Zimbabwe” that, “(Mugabe’s) pull out of the Commonwealth, and SADC Tribunal…shows one should never underestimate his destructive capacity.”

Interesting politics of the Security Council
It appears that Mugabe is furious as the African Union has been thwarted in their attempts to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). According to Mugabe, China and Russia backed his position on giving the African Union veto powers. This is an interesting comment, as Russia, Britain, France, and the United States make up the UN Security Council.

Nevertheless, it is unclear how Russia and China stand on the issue – given that India seemed a bit on the back foot when they learned that they too supported the splinter group. Whilst India agrees that there should be reforms in the UN and expanded powers to the African block, they will “continue to fight for reform of the UN from within” and will keep a close watch on Zimbabwean developments with regards to investment and “when there is a policy shift, we will jump in,” Masakui said.

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

‘They tried to crush her spirit’: Anti-Mugabe activist ordered freed after 82 days in custody

By David Coltart | Published September 27, 2016

News24

Correspondent

27th September 2016

Harare – Critics of Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe have been celebrating a court order for the release of an anti-government activist who has been in custody for nearly 12 weeks.

But there are loud questions as to why mother-of-five Linda Masarira of the Tajamuka [We are Agitated] protest movement was kept inside a maximum security prison for so long.

She was arrested on July 6 in Harare. Lawyers have been trying to get her freed ever since.

Masarira has not been tried or convicted of a crime. But her case has been complicated by a warrant of arrest issued against her in the eastern city of Mutare on June 6, when she did not turn up for a court hearing on a different matter.

She says she was in hospital on that day receiving treatment for a dislocated finger sustained during a police beating.

She’s been seen in court recently with bandages on her hand.

Thelma Chikwanha of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights said on Facebook on Monday: “Justice [David] Mangota has ordered the release of Linda Masarira who has been in custody since her arrest on 6 July.”

“Great stuff,” commented former finance minister and opposition leader Tendai Biti on Twitter.

Pastor Mawarire, who was arrested on July 12 for organising a stayaway and is now living in exile, tweeted: “Victory is not only Linda’s release. It is that she still stands strong coz they tried 2 crush her spirit. Welcome home @lilomatic #ThisFlag”.

David Coltart, Zimbabwe’s former education minister, wrote on Facebook: “This is another example of law being used as a weapon against those who oppose this corrupt and ruthless regime.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment

A remarkable testament of hope for Zimbabwe

By David Coltart | Published September 15, 2016

The Spectator

15 September 2016

By Matthew Parris

David Coltart’s memoir describes incredible courage as well as political folly and human brutality

‘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.’

This comes from Robert Browning’s ‘Epilogue’. It is quoted (though not of himself) in a staggering book by an author who in my eyes holds as good a claim to exemplify its spirit as anyone in the 20th-century history of Africa. Yes, anyone, including the many brave black freedom fighters, from Nelson Mandela down, who kept their heads held high when the odds seemed all against them. Even on Robben Island, even in the winter of his discomfort, -Mandela knew that history was on his side.

David Coltart never did, and does not now — how can he? — yet still he believes, still he risks his life. I want to ask why, and how, and in what he has reposed his trust.

Coltart is the white former Rhodesian, now Zimbabwean, whose life has been spent fighting for justice, education and sound administration in the exasperating, beguiling country of my own upbringing. He started his adult years in Rhodesia’s British South Africa Police as a one-time admirer of Ian Smith and that reckless populist’s white supremacist breakaway government — I suppose you’d call it Rhexit now. It took Coltart some time to conclude that Smith was leading his country down a cul-de-sac, and in terms of black advancement was not a visionary or even a gradualist, but a reactionary.

He developed a wary respect for Robert Mugabe, so it took him some time — and the evidence of his own eyes — to accept the reality of the Matabeleland massacres, and I sense that even near Robert Mugabe’s end, even after Mugabe’s followers’ repeated attempts to assassinate him (chronicled here like the occasional rainy day), Coltart retains some lingering sense of the greatness that was within Mugabe’s reach.

He went into the law, risking much by his defence of human rights in the face of advancing autocracy, and to this I shall return. Then he went into politics, was -elected — one of four brave white MPs — for Morgan Tsvangirai’s opposition Movement for Democratic Change, and spent years watching that party’s agonies. Finally, in 2009, Coltart became a rather unexpected Minister of Education: a bad election result had forced Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party into coalition with the MDC.

There followed four years during which, according to every reliable report, David Coltart rescued Zimbabwe’s once-proud education system: its schools on the brink of collapse, its employees on strike, its teachers unpaid. When Zanu-PF regained full control and Coltart was dismissed, he says he was relieved; but what he had achieved had — has — helped shape for the better the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabwean children. He saved a country’s schools.

To describe as magnificent his recently published memoir, The Struggle Continues, is to understate. As a testament to courage it is outstanding; as a record of political folly, missed opportunity and human brutality, it is shocking. In the contrast between the often humdrum schoolboy prose, and the heroism and horror it chronicles, the book puts me in mind of the late explorer Wilfred Thesiger’s diaries. Talk about ‘underwritten’ — there are single, rather flat paragraphs without number here that any lively journalist could turn into eyewitness front-page splashes.

But Coltart’s purposes throughout his career do not include self-advertisement. In writing this book those purposes are to make, in the course of a careful record of his own life, the only reliable, scrupulous, first-hand account of half a century’s Zimbabwean-Rhodesian history that may ever be written — for many of the key players are dead or dying; and to provide, through all the struggle and every reverse, a testament of hope for the bit of Africa he knows and serves.

Why hope? The man’s courage and success spring only from hope and could have no other source, certainly not experience. Whence, then, springs the hope? I see two sources, one prosaic, one celestial.

Perhaps I should not call a belief in the rule of law prosaic, for it is the bedrock of our civilisation, and Coltart, a trained advocate, knows this. But the rule of law falls lifeless from the statute book if others do not know it too. What Coltart’s story shows is how difficult autocrats find it to chip away at a firm foundation in law, where this has been properly established in the public imagination.

Rhodesia’s judges, standing up to Ian Smith, and Zimbabwe’s judges, standing up to Zanu-PF, have had remarkable success in the last half-century. There remains a residual respect for due process in both white and black minds, and its power should never be underestimated. Thugs and despots across the globe do trample on systems of justice, but they are ashamed when they do. Coltart and many others in Rhodesia and then Zimbabwe have shamed many, and sometimes shamed them out of their misdeeds. It is rather surprising how successfully this has been done, and for how long.

Most of us, I think, find the pomposity and self-regard of the legal profession and the whole judicial process often infuriating. Reading The Struggle Continues, though, I begin to wonder whether the self-belief of lawyers and legislators may not be as much a bulwark against tyranny as those high-flown phrases about vision and progress that have, perhaps, an easier purchase on shallow minds.

The more celestial source of Coltart’s steady optimism is one that, as an avowed atheist, I find difficult to acknowledge. When a young man he had an, if not damascene, then certainly all-consuming conversion to Christianity and its God. This he maintained and maintains, through it all.

I think this man’s creed unreasonable. See, through his eyes, what he has seen and you will find it hard to share his confidence in Zimbabwe’s future. But what else can sustain hope in the face of insufficient reason for hope, save a stubborn faith in something beyond reason? I simply ask.

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Zimbabwe’s military and ruling party will do anything to hold on to power warns former minister

By David Coltart | Published September 14, 2016

International Business Times

By Elsa Buchanan

September 14, 2016

Former Minister David Coltart claims military will “do anything in their power to hang on” in 2018 polls.

Zimbabwe’s ruling party, Zanu-PF, and the military may be fracturing along generational lines but many underestimate party members and officers’ determination to stay in power as the 2018 general elections approach, former Education Minister David Coltart has claimed.

After decades of quelled frustrations under President Robert Mugabe’s iron-fisted rule, the country has been rocked by grassroots protest movements calling for change as the ruling party splits over who will succeed him (read below: Is Zimbabwe’s military splitting?).

The reportedly divided Zanu-PF will seek to extend its 36-year rule in the 2018 general election, but opposition political parties, which are hoping to force Zanu PF out, remain deeply disorganised despite a number of coalitions already in place.

Speaking to IBTimes UK, Coltart, who was Minister between 2009 and 2013 under the opposition MDC and Zanu-PF coalition government, claimed Zanu-PF officials will “do anything in their power to hang on” come 2018.

Is Zimbabwe’s military splitting?

The malaise comes during a bitter political battle within Mugabe’s ruling Zanu-PF, which has seen two rival factions, called the G40 and Team Lacoste, fight for control of the party – and ultimately for Mugabe’s succession.

It is understood that the head of Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF), General Constantine Chiwenga, supports Vice-President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s faction Team Lacoste, backed by the war veterans. In the past, the “war vets” and Mnangagwa have been the key pillars underpinning Mugabe’s regime.

Meanwhile, Major General Douglas Nyiakaramba, chief of administration, is said to back Grace Mugabe’s faction.

While there are currently 34,000 living war veterans in Zimbabwe, the ZDF boasts an estimated30,000 active personnel and some 20,000 reserves, making it one of 16 most powerful armies in Africa, according to the Global Fire Power index.

“It’s hard to envision real change in 2018, partly because of the reality on the ground,” the politician said from the nation’s second-largest city, Bulawayo.

Africa’s oldest head of state faces a real threat of split within the armed forces, which could endanger the cohesion of his power base within Zanu-PF, but General Constantine Chiwenga, the commander of Zimbabwe Defence forces (ZDF), last month vowed his forces will stand by the embattled president.

Zimbabwe’s military has had a critical role in politics since the independence war against the white-minority state of Rhodesia.

‘We have underestimated the determination of the military to hold on to power’

“In the past we have always underestimated the determination of the military in particular to hold on to power. The division between the military hierarchy and Zanu-PF hierarchy has always been very difficult to differentiate,” Coltart explained.

“There has been so much fusion between the two. Even if Mugabe retires or dies, I still think that you’re going to have this streak of former war veterans – and now we also see this in people within the military – they will do anything in their power to hang on.”

Coltart, a veteran human rights lawyer, said he believes that only a complete fusion of Zimbabwe’s different parties under one political party will bring change in the 2018 general elections.

“A grand coalition is certainly something that we need. The division in the main opposition has been a gift to Mugabe and Zanu-PF. But there is a growing realisation that we can’t afford the luxury to remain divided – all these opposition parties are divided on personality rather than policy.

He added: “I am hopeful that there will be more cohesion but we have a long way to go yet. The ideal, of course, is to see not just a coalition but a complete fusion of these different parties under one political party – that would be the ideal. While I think that’s probably a bridge too far, what would be hopeful is at least a coalition in which you don’t split the votes but agree on a single opposition candidate for president.”

Posted in Press reports | Leave a comment