Politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe 2000-2001
A report on the campaign of political repression conducted by the Zimbabwean Government under the guise of carrying out land reform
August 2001

5. Campaign against independent institutions

The independent press has played an important role in exposing corruption and the abuse of power by Government officials and in documenting the violent activities of ZANU (PF) supporters. This has made it a primary target for the ruling party, which has used a range of legal and extra-legal measures to try to silence it. These measures include making death threats to and assaults on reporters,⁶⁰ bombing the offices and printing press⁶¹ of one independent newspaper, charging editors and reporters with criminal defamation, and repeatedly suing newspapers for civil defamation, claiming large amounts of damages. Legislation imposing far-reaching restrictions on the press is in the pipeline. It includes Government registration of newspapers, licensing of reporters and the establishment of a statutory media council. The legislation will enable the Government to stop newspapers and journalists from operating if found guilty by the Government-appointed council. It will also severely restrict foreign funding of Zimbabwean media institutions.

Steps are also being taken against foreign journalists. In February 2001 the Government forced two foreign journalists who had been highly critical of it to leave the country.⁶² In mid-June it announced stricter working conditions for foreign journalists, requiring them to apply for press accreditation at least a month before an intended visit. Applications have to be submitted to the Information Ministry in Harare or through Zimbabwe’s diplomatic missions abroad. Journalists have been warned not to make travel plans until approval is given.⁶³ Also in mid-June the Government rejected applications for entry by two bbc film crews. At the end of June a third foreign journalist was told that his work permit would not be renewed when it expired in July.⁶⁴

A number of NGOs in Zimbabwe are highly critical of the Mugabe Government and have documented and exposed the human rights abuses committed by State security agencies and ZANU (PF) supporters. The Government has therefore sought to undermine them. Security agency personnel have tried to infiltrate NGOs to find out about their operations and to cause trouble within them, and the Government has funded the establishment of pro-Government parallel agencies to weaken support for existing NGOs. Further measures in the pipeline to hamper the operations of NGOs include one aimed at restricting foreign funding for them.

In June 2001 the Government-controlled press reported that the Government was proposing to ban NGOs and the churches from carrying out voter education; instead, the Government-appointed Electoral Supervisory Commission would conduct voter education programmes.⁶⁵ The Commission is seriously underfunded and understaffed.

The High Court and Supreme Court have made a series of rulings that land reform is being carried out illegally. The Government has ignored court orders requiring it to evict illegal farm invaders and to comply with the required procedures contained in its own laws. In one case the Supreme Court said: "There is no dispute that a programme of land reform is necessary and indeed essential for the future peace and prosperity of Zimbabwe."⁶⁶ It added that the Government had enacted the necessary laws for land reform, but had then failed to comply with these laws. All the courts were doing was to seek to have the Government abide by its own laws. The Supreme Court also made the following observation:

Wicked things have been done and continue to be done. They must be stopped. Common law crimes have been, and are being, committed with impunity. Laws made by Parliament have been flouted by the Government. The activities of the past nine months must be condemned.

The Mugabe Government responded by mounting vicious verbal attacks upon the Judiciary, claiming that the judges were seeking to prevent land reform. It stage-managed protests by "war veterans" against the judges, culminating in the invasion of the main courtroom of the Supreme Court. The "war veterans" threatened to invade the homes of judges if they did not resign.⁶⁷ These attacks sought to discredit the Judiciary and create the impression that the judges were obstructing the equitable re-distribution of land.⁶⁸

Although an agreement reached between the Government and Chief Justice Gubbay included Government assurances that it respected the independence of the judiciary and a Government undertaking that it would put a stop to attempts to remove judges illegally,⁶⁹ pressure continued to be exerted on judges perceived to be hostile towards the Government. This pressure led eventually to the forced early retirement of Chief Justice Gubbay. The war veterans vowed that they would continue their campaign to get rid of "reactionary" judges. Chinotimba threatened to force the resignation of one judge who had decided in favour of the MDC in one of the constituency challenges (see 4.3).

Since the resignation of Chief Justice Gubbay, three judges have resigned. At least one of these resignations stemmed from threats by "war veterans".⁷⁰ The Government has appointed eight new judges, all of whom have connections with the ruling party.  TOP

⁶⁰ Foreign journalists have also been assaulted. On 18 October 2000 in Dzivarasekwa in Harare members of the army assaulted four journalists working for the foreign media. The four work for CNN, SABC and AP. They were pulled out of their vehicle, were forced to lie down on the road and were brutally beaten. They also had money and cell phones stolen by the army.

⁶¹ The bombing of the printing press of the Daily News occurred soon after a Government Minister had issued threats against the newspaper. The same Government Minister then stated that no stone would be left unturned in bringing the bombers to book. Months after the event no one has been arrested in connection with this bombing.

⁶² BBC’s Harare correspondent Joseph Winter was given 24 hours to leave Zimbabwe by the immigration office. Six men who tried to force their way into his home at 2.00 a.m. Winter phoned journalist friends, and when they arrived, the invaders ran away. It is believed they were trying to kidnap Winter. Daily News 17 February 2001.

⁶³ BBC 14 June 2001.

⁶⁴ The reporter is David Blair, a reporter for the London Telegraph. He had been in Zimbabwe for two years. The Times 28 June 2001.

⁶⁵ Herald 26 June 2001.

⁶⁶ Commercial Farmers’ Union v Minister of Lands & Ors Supreme Court case No 132 of 2000.

⁶⁷ Daily News 18 February 2001.

⁶⁸ See Feltoe "The onslaught against democracy and rule of law in Zimbabwe" Zimbabwe Human Rights Bulletin Issue No 4 2000 p 30 and Report of International Bar Association on Zimbabwe Mission 2001 issued on 23 April 2001.

⁶⁹ An agreement was finally reached between the Government and the Chief Justice about his early retirement. Under this, Gubbay agreed to resign early and not to oppose the immediate appointment of an Acting Chief Justice up to the time his resignation period expired and the Government agreed not to interfere with the judiciary or to make further attempts unlawfully to remove any of the remaining judges. Government also agreed to withdraw all demeaning statements previously made by officials about Gubbay, and not to repeat such statements. Dr Hunzvi immediately said the war veterans would not recognise this agreement but would intensify their efforts to kick out the whole Supreme Court bench and white High Court judges. Hunzvi said the war veterans would use violence if it was necessary to do so. He said no one could stop them from denouncing those judges.

⁷⁰ In its report on its mission to Zimbabwe in March 2001 the International Bar Association made a key recommendation that the Zimbabwean Government should "zealously protect judges against threats of physical violence". It also urged the Minister of Justice, the Attorney-General and the police to investigate all reported threats to the judges without waiting for formal complaints to be lodged. Events subsequent to this visit clearly show that these recommendations have not been followed and that the Government has not taken adequate steps to protect the judges against harassment from the war veterans.  TOP