Complying with the Abuja Agreement: Two Months Report
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.
December 17, 2001

Purpose of the report

The Abuja Agreement provided a standard for both the Commonwealth and SADC to measure progress in resolving the Zimbabwe Crisis. In terms of the Abuja Agreement, the Zimbabwean Government committed itself, amongst other things, to “take firm action against violence and intimidation”. This report, which is a follow-up to a report issued in October by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, examines whether there has been compliance with this term of the Agreement. Although the major focus is upon human rights observance, this report also describes the government’s response to various other aspects of the Abuja Agreement.

Background

The Abuja Agreement was reached in Nigeria on 8 September 2001. This Agreement seemed to mark a significant development towards addressing the current Zimbabwe crisis.

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. Additionally, the vagueness of the Agreement has led to an equivocal appraisal of the Government’s compliance with the Agreement by the Abuja Group of Foreign Ministers in their recent visit to Harare.

Although land is an important issue, the main reason for the crisis in Zimbabwe is not due to the land problem, but has been induced by 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. Evidence relating to all of these issues was provided to the Abuja Foreign Ministers.

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.

The dimensions of the Zimbabwe crisis have been most broadly given by Zimbabwean civil society, and these are articulated in the resolutions of the 4 August Conference [See Appendix 1]. This detailed statement stands in sharp contradistinction to most descriptions of the Zimbabwe crisis, and very clearly places the land problem in proper perspective. The Crisis Conference Co-Ordinating Committee has sought audience with the Government since August, but has received no response of any credible kind.

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. The SADC Presidents made some strong statements in respect of the rule of law and the continuing violence, and required the Zimbabwe Government to take positive steps to redress the situation.  It is thus appropriate to take stock of the developments since Abuja, the visit of the SADC Presidents, and the Abuja Foreign Ministers Group.

Contents    « Prev    Next »

TOP