Rights commission to look only at post-2009 abuses
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
Friday, 20 May 2011 09:15
By Paidamoyo Muzulu and Nqobile Bhebhe
VICTIMS of state-sponsored organised violence and torture prior to and after
Independence have to wait longer for justice because the proposed Zimbabwe
Human Rights Commission will only deal with cases that happened after the
formation of the coalition government in 2009.
The victims’ hope for justice was raised by Constitutional Amendment No19
which was passed in January 2009 and saw a Human Rights Commission being
hastily inaugurated without an enabling act to support its function.
Cabinet agreed to the Human Rights Commission Bill but the proposed law
states that the commission would only look into human rights violations
committed after February 2009. That means the liberation war and Gukurahundi
atrocities, the 1990 election violence, the 2000 referendum and
parliamentary election violence, and the 2008 presidential runoff violence
would be conveniently erased from the collectively memory of the country
through this legislation.
Zimbabweans who harboured dreams of justice for abuses unleashed on the
populace during the chaotic and violent land reform programme and the much
maligned Operation Murambatsvina of 2005 have been left disappointed.
Political activists, opposition leaders, civic society and trade unionists
all have long and sad tales on human rights violations. Some were abducted,
tortured, beaten and forced to do despicable things by perpetrators, most of
who are walking scot free.
Political and social analysts concur that the government is not sincere in
its treatment of human rights issues but merely playing to the gallery.
Dewa Mavhinga, Regional Coordinator for Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition based
in Johannesburg, said: “Such a curtailment of the scope of functions of the
Human Rights Commission shows clearly that those who wield de facto power in
this inclusive government are not sincere about genuine commitment to human
rights respect.”
Mavhinga added that the commission should not be limited by time in its
scope to right the wrongs of human rights abuses committed in the past.
“If the commission is to be relevant at all, it must be left free to examine
any issue that relates to human rights abuses regardless of when those
abuses took place,” he said. “In fact, the most relevant gross human rights
abuses in Zimbabwe that must be investigated for justice and accountability
pre-date the formation of the inclusive government, particularly the 1980s
Gukurahundi atrocities and the widespread 2008 electoral violence that
claimed over 200 lives of mainly MDC supporters.”
Analysts further agree that Zimbabwe does not need a Human Rights Commission
for mere window-dressing, but one that is effective and relevant to the
needs of thousands of victims of abuse.
Lawyers for Human Rights director, Irene Petras, said all human rights
violations should be investigated if the country was to move forward.
“If the commission is not allowed by law to look at other epochs of history,
it means that other ways should be found. The Organ on National Healing
should come up with ways of dealing with violence of the past. It could be a
truth and reconciliation commission, a reconciliation commission or a
special ad hoc commission to look at violations from different periods of
history.”
She added that it would be wrong to proscribe crimes and those who breached
certain laws should always be made to account for their actions.
“Crime cannot be proscribed. People should be made to answer through trials
or apologies for their actions,” Petras said.
Constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku believes parliamentarians should
flex their muscles and block such bad laws in accordance with their mandate.
“The proposal is wrong. The law is unjust and MPs have a right to reject
such defective laws,” Madhuku said.
He added that the MDC formations can use their majority to stop the proposed
Bill from the executive.
“The MDC should use their majority to block such a law, particularly because
a majority of their members bore the brunt of the violations. They should
use their majority in the Lower House to stop that piece of legislation like
they did on the election of the Speaker.”
Zapu spokesperson, Methuseli Moyo said Zanu PF had tamed the commission by
prescribing a limited jurisdiction to its activities.
“Zanu PF has given itself immunity to atrocities and human right violations
committed since 1980 by saying that the commission would only investigate
cases from February 2009. Zanu PF people should know that they will not be
safe in the next government because certainly they would not be in control.
As Zapu, together with other partners, we want to ensure the human rights
commission is granted a green light to investigate all reported human rights
cases dating back to 1980,” said Moyo.
Effie Ncube, Matabeleland Constitutional Reform Agenda leader concurred with
Moyo saying a special commission should be set up to look into the
Gukurahundi era.
“The Gukurahundi era is a special period in the history of Zimbabwe and the
announcement that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission operations will
exclude the 1980s atrocities is shocking and regrettable. All human rights
defenders should advocate for setting up of a special commission to
interrogate that period.
Omitting that period would only serve to embolden people with propensity for
violence to continue their acts knowing that they would not be prosecuted,”
added Ncube.
Edwin Ndlovu, MDC Bulawayo provincial spokesman said the commission should
be allowed to work in retrospect.
“Attempts to cover up the pre-2009 human rights violations should be
condemned by all democratic Zimbabweans. If the commission was created to
investigate violations in Zimbabwe, no one should prescribe a timeframe. The
Gukurahundi atrocities, Murambatsvina era, farm invasions and all violence
recorded during elections should be interrogated,” said Ndlovu.
After all is said and done, Zimbabweans repose their faith in their elected
representatives to make sure that justice prevails. Parliament would be
under severe scrutiny all the way until the commission’s Bill is passed or
rejected. The stakes are high after the violations of the last decade.