Complying with the Abuja Agreement
In terms of the Abuja Agreement, the Zimbabwean Government committed itself to “take firm action against violence and intimidation”. This report examines whether there has been compliance with this term of the Agreement.
October 23, 2001

Background

 The Abuja Agreement was reached in Nigeria on 6 September 2001. This Agreement seemed to mark a significant development in addressing the current Zimbabwe crisis. 

 President Robert Mugabe agreed to its terms and the ZANU (PF) Politburo accepted it in principle. The Zimbabwean Government, however, made no clear public statement indicating its complete acceptance of the Agreement. 

 The primary focus of the Abuja Agreement is the land issue. This has allowed the Zimbabwe Government to treat the Agreement as if it dealt only with the land issue. The vagueness of the terms of the Agreement has also allowed the Zimbabwe Government to construe the Agreement as an unequivocal endorsement of its violent fast track land programme.

 Although land is an important issue, the main reason for the crisis in Zimbabwe is not because of land but because of bad governance and serious misuse of power. There has been systematic, violent intimidation of opponents of the Government, gross mismanagement of the economy and endemic corruption by Government officials. All of these things have led to instability and catastrophic economic decline.  

Nonetheless, the Abuja Agreement does cover most aspects of the Zimbabwe crisis. It commits the Zimbabwe Government-

§          to “take firm action against violence and intimidation.” 

§          to comply with the standards contained in the Harare Declaration and the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme 

§          to observe human rights, the rule of law, transparency and democratic principles

§          to take a series of confidence-building measures that will lead to immediate and observable changes in the domestic situation. 

 If the Government of Zimbabwe takes seriously these commitments, this would go a long way to resolving the deep crisis in the country. 

 Soon after the signing of the Abuja Agreement, doubt was cast upon whether the Zimbabwe Government was sincere in its commitment to take various measures to build confidence amongst all sectors of Zimbabwean society. When a delegation of SADC Presidents arrived on a follow up mission, the Government of Zimbabwe prevented several important civil society groupings from meeting with and giving testimony to the SADC Presidents. Even more worrying was the statement reportedly made by Zimbabwe’s Information Minister on 25 September that there was no condition in the Abuju Agreement requiring the Government to put a stop to violence on farms.

Contents    « Prev    Next »