8 November, 2010

Johannesburg:  Heads of State from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have unlawfully sabotaged the SADC Tribunal and undermined the right of citizens to access justice, according to a legal opinion submitted on Friday by a group of respected legal and human rights organisations.

The opinion contends that SADC leaders – particularly at the last Heads of State Summit in Windhoek – have deliberately undermined the Tribunal by violating regional laws and acting unconstitutionally.

“SADC leaders have unlawfully ensured that the Tribunal – a critical legal institution – can no longer function, leaving citizens without legal remedy at the regional level,” said Nicole Fritz, Director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre. “Instead of abiding by SADC laws, our leaders have willingly and unanimously violated them – and violated our right to access justice as well.”

According to the legal opinion, SADC leaders have acted unlawfully by effectively suspending the Tribunal – by making sure that it is not properly constituted and so cannot operate. SADC laws require that the Tribunal be comprised of no fewer than ten judges but the leaders have violated these laws – by failing to renew the terms of those judges eligible for reappointment or to appoint new judges to fill any vacancies so that the Tribunal no longer has enough judges to hear new cases.

The seven national, regional and international legal organisations that endorsed the opinion also believe that SADC leaders have acted beyond their constitutionally given powers and violated judicial independence and the right to effective legal remedy.

“We are also very concerned that the decision to sabotage the Tribunal was taken in bad faith – to appease Zimbabwe and to ensure that it did not have to comply with a series of rulings related to land seizures,” said Fritz. “Once again, our leaders have shown that they do not take decisions based on what’s good for their people – but what’s best for them and the elites in power across the region.”

However, the legal NGOs argue that SADC’s leaders can remedy the illegality of their recent decisions and resucitate the Tribunal by:

·         Calling for an immediate extraordinary Summit to review and remedy the decisions taken in Windhoek;
·         Renewing the terms of those Tribunal judges eligible for reappointment or appointing sufficient new judges to ensure the proper functioning of the Tribunal;
·         Respecting – in accordance with international law – the independence of the judiciary by upholding the right of Tribunal members to security of tenure and independence; and,
·         Ensuring SADC citizens have access to justice and an effective remedy at regional level.

“Even outside the legal context, the repercussions of this decision are grave”, said Fritz. “SADC asks that its regional integration project be taken seriously and yet at so critical a point in time effectively disbands an institution which is vital to this project.”

List of NGOs:

Southern Africa Litigation Centre, SALC
Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation – Malawi
Ditshwanelo, The Botswana Centre for Human Rights
International Commission of Jurists, ICJ – Africa Regional Office
Legal Assistance Centre, Namibia
Open Society Justice Initiative, OSJI
Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa, SERI
Zimbabwe Exiles Forum

For further information, contact:

Nicole Fritz, Director, Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) +27 11 5875000; +27 82 6001028
nicolef@salc.org.za

Background:

Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) promotes and advances human rights and the rule of law in southern Africa, primarily through strategic litigation support and capacity building. SALC provides technical and monetary support to local and regional lawyers and organizations in litigating human rights and rule of law cases in the region.  SALC also provides training in human rights and rule of law issues and facilitates networks of human rights lawyers and organizations throughout southern Africa.
www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org

The sort of person who, if targeted sanctions are lifted, would then be free to mingle with the citizens of the USA and the EU. By no means the worst on the list, meet Olivia Muchena: coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

Olivia Muchena was well educated at two of the best universities in the USA – yet she fully supports Mugabe’s hatred of the west. “I am inspired by President Robert Mugabe. I admire his courage to stand up to the world on matters relating to the defence of the country,” she says.

By ‘defence of the country’ she must mean defence of Mugabe’s life presidency, because no country has threatened Zimbabwe’s territorial integrity since independence in 1980.

But Olivia Muchena idolises Robert Mugabe, and this ensured her swift rise to the top of the pecking order in ZanuPF. She was first elected Member of Parliament (Mutoko South) on a Zanu-PF ticket in 1995 and has been promoted often since then. Her titles have included deputy Minister of Agriculture; Minister of State in the Vice President’s office responsible for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement; Minister of State in the President’s office for Science and Technology Development and Minister of Science and Technology.
At the formation of the Inclusive Government in 2009, Muchena (62) was appointed Minister of Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development.

“Accessory to murder” is probably another description that should be added to her list of titles.

Olivia Muchena – What have you done to deserve sanctions?

Involved in political violence as far back as the 2000 elections, Muchena enthusiastically joined in the presidential ‘run-off’ campaign in 2008 by mobilising gangs of thugs to terrorise her constituents.

Although Muchena is also a lay preacher for the United Methodist Church, for the presidential election campaign she put Mugabe before God, setting aside her duties in the church for as long as it took to beat her parishioners into bloody submission. A few of the recorded incidents which took place in the months before the one-man presidential election are:

April 1, 2008
Olivia Muchena sent one of  the leaders of her campaign team known as Richard Makoni to accompany Bramwell Katsvairo on a mission to eliminate some MDC ‘targets’ in the district. Makoni’s task was to identify the wanted MDC activists for Katsvairo. In the afternoon of that day Makoni fingered MDC member Tatenda Chibika at Chibeta Business Centre. Tatenda was shot at close range by Katsvairo and died on the spot. Olivia Muchena is said to have issued an order that Tatenda be buried immediately so that there would be no chance of a postmortem.

April 14, 2008
Olivia Muchena instructed her gang of Zanu-PF youths to go and order MDC district official Tendai ‘Mafuta’ Chibika to attend a rally she was addressing at Chidye Centre. Tendai set off for the rally in the company of three other MDC supporters including his sister. On the road to the rally the group was ambushed by Muchena’s hired assassin, Bramwell Katsvairo. Katsvairo shot Tendai twice in the stomach, then left, leaving his companions to watch helplessly as he died there on the road.

On the same day, a gang of Zanu-PF militia led by a ‘war veteran’ known as Kwirira, abducted Masukuta Makuyana from Dumaira Centre in Mutoko South, accusing him of campaigning for the MDC. They bundled him into Olivia Muchena’s pickup truck, drove a short way off and then beat him to death.

April 16, 2008
Zanu-PF district officials, Order Nyakudanga and Chatambudza Makoni called a forced-attendance rally at Rukawo Business centre where several MDC supporters were pulled out of the crowd and subjected to brutal beatings as part of Zanu-PF’s campaign message to the people. Givemore Masarirevhu was among the MDC activists singled out.  The Zanu-PF senior officials worked him over, demonstrating their wartime torture skills before a terrified and captive crowd. By the time Olivia Muchena arrived at the rally around 4pm, Givemore and his other MDC colleagues were lying in a heap, bleeding and semi-conscious. Nyakudanga showed her how the ‘traitors’ had been adequately punished, but Olivia Muchena told the victims that they had not been beaten enough and she invited the youths in her entourage to give the injured men yet another beating that lasted even longer than before. Eyewitnesses say they saw one of the victims die and his body was taken away in one of the trucks in Muchena’s convoy.

May 1, 2008
Olivia Muchena leading a group of Zanu-PF youths descended on an MDC member’s homestead and had it burned to the ground. They severely assaulted the woman of the house and left her for dead. They stole two of her goats for food at their base.

May 5, 2008
A group of Zanu-PF militia who had been seen driving around Hoyuyu resettlement area in the company of the Zanu-PF MP  Olivia Muchena, came back in the evening and abducted Siraju Musa. The group beat Musa to death in the bush close to his homestead. This gang linked to Olivia Muchena included Washington Tikude, Enerst Masenda, Dickson Chibika, Tauya Mukanga, Samuel Kambanje and others. Witnesses report that the group drove away in Olivia Muchena’s truck soon after the murder.

Not even her own party members escape her brand of ‘discipline’:

May 31, 2008
During the night Nancy Chidzidzi and Taurai Chihuri (a village Headman) were shot to death at their homes by people who were reported to be CIO agents. The dead were described as Zanu-PF local officials who had fallen out with Olivia Muchena by refusing her order to identify local MDC supporters for her death list. Olivia Muchena is reported to have arrived at the scene of the murder later that night and ordered a quick burial of the two bodies without any postmortem, saying that the CIO group was to continue with the presidential campaign without wasting time.

Muchena was placed on the EU Sanctions list with the following annotation:
“117. Muchena, Olivia Nyembesi (a.k.a. Nyembezi) Minister of State for Science and Technology in the President’s Office (former Minister of State in Vice-President Msika’s Office), born 18.8.1946. Member of the Government and as such engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

During her stint as Deputy Agriculture Minister and no doubt because of her qualifications in agriculture, Muchena was involved in the farm-grab launched after the president’s humiliating defeat at the national constitutional referendum in 2000.  She now ‘owns’ two large commercial farms in Goromonzi district near Harare: Inhaka Farm and The Meadows.

More recently Muchena has taken her Mugabe-inspired penchant for violence right to the centre of her own party. At the ZPF Women’s League Conference in September 2009, her supporters battled with those of Oppah Muchinguri , the Women’s League boss. The women attacked using the folding chairs in the catering tents just  outside the conference hall, screaming “sell-outs” and other insults.

Muchena’s motivation was apparently to weaken the support base of Oppah Muchinguri in favour of her ally, Vice-President Joice Mujuru. Muchena then set the security men on Muchinguri’s supporters, to block their entrance to the hall where the election of executive officers was taking place. The security detail, some of whom were ‘plain-clothes’ policemen, laid into the women with batons and folded chairs, seriously injuring 15 delegates and hospitalising two.

This behaviour earned nothing more than a gentle rebuke from Robert Mugabe in his speech at the close of the conference.

Since her appointment by Mugabe as the new Minister for Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development, her only contribution so far has been her October 2009 motion in parliament calling for the castration of rapists.

Granted, the Rape Bill is more relevant to her new Ministry than sending gangs to eliminate isolated community leaders.  But Muchena seems to have forgotten that if her rape law was passed, it would neuter her gang members, all male members of the CIO and the Youth Militia (Green Bombers), plus half the national army, police force and prison officials.

Rape “should be treated like first degree murder and have castration as part of punishment”,  declared Muchena in Parliament.  It would not be surprising if the MDC – just this once – backs her bill to the maximum.

Meanwhile, talking of murder, she evidently believes that she has sufficiently distanced herself from the terror gangs she was directing and transporting around during April and May 2008, using her state allocated vehicles.

In the uneven playing field of Zimbabwe politics, the MDC is being pressurised to demand the lifting of these targeted travel bans. Zanu-PF is using the sanctions as an excuse to justify its refusal to proceed with implementation of the provisions in the GPA.

MDC Director of Security Kisimusi Ndhlamini said that if targeted sanctions against these individuals were lifted by the EU and the USA, then his party was going to call for the travel bans to be replaced by warrants of arrest for those on the list who are perpetrators of political violence.

So remember the face of Olivia Muchena: perhaps one day she will be spotted wandering around Harrods or the Paris Hilton – and arrested as a danger to society.

The Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations

[Statutory Instrument 21/2010]

Introduction
These regulations, which were gazetted on 29th January, have caused consternation in many quarters.  Economists and business commentators fear they will discourage foreign investment at a time when Zimbabwe desperately needs it, and some foreigners who were intending to invest in the country have indicated that the regulations are a significant obstacle to their plans.

The Prime Minister claimed that neither he nor the Cabinet had seen the regulations before they were published; they were therefore null and void.  He assured business executives that they would not be punished if they failed to comply with the law.  The Minister responsible for the regulations, on the other hand, said he had consulted widely before preparing the regulations and that they had indeed been considered by the Cabinet.  In any event, he said, the regulations merely implemented the indigenisation programme set out in the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, which had already been passed by Parliament.

Last week Acting Prime Minister Khupe told an investment conference that the responsible Minister and the Minister of Economic Planning and Investment Promotion had agreed “to return to the drawing board” on the regulations.  But public statements of this sort, even by the Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister, do not unmake the regulations.  The latest statements by the President that they are “irreversible” and the responsible Minister that there is “no going back” make it clear that at best there may be amendments to the regulations to take account of concerns.

Legally, these regulations will remain on the statute book until they are properly repealed by another statutory instrument gazetted by the Minister of Youth Development and Economic Empowerment.

Were the regulations validly promulgated?
The regulations were made in terms of section 21 of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act, which allows the Minister to make regulations providing for “all matters … which, in his or her opinion, are necessary or convenient to be provided for in order to carry out or give effect to [the] Act.” There is nothing in section 21 of the Act obliging the Minister to consult the Prime Minister or the President before making the regulations;  all he has to do is consult an advisory board called the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board.  While it is the general practice for all regulations which are likely to have a significant impact on society to be submitted to the Cabinet Committee on Legislation before being promulgated, and for really important regulations to be considered by the Cabinet, this is merely a practice and not a legal obligation. The Inter-party Political Agreement, as embodied in Schedule 8 to the Constitution, states that the Prime Minister must “ensure that … Ministers develop appropriate implementation plans to give effect to the policies decided by Cabinet”, and obliges Ministers to “report to the Prime Minister on all issues relating to the implementation of such policies and plans” [Article 20.1.4(e)].  But the Agreement does not make the Prime Minister’s consent a prerequisite for the publication of regulations [although in the spirit of the GPA, the Minister should have brought the regulations to the PM].  If a Minister publishes regulations in accordance with an Act of Parliament, therefore, but fails to keep the Prime Minister properly briefed, the failure does not invalidate the regulations.  The Prime Minister’s assurance that people will not be punished if they disobey the regulations is legally invalid, because he has no power to exempt anyone from compliance with the law.

The problem is that the Act, passed when ZANU-PF had a majority in Parliament, gives the Minister inordinately broad powers to make regulations, and he has exercised them to the full, at a time that is most unpropitious for the recovery of the economy and damaging to the inclusive government.  This is a political issue which must be resolved politically.  Meanwhile, the regulations will remain in force.

What do the regulations say?
Application of Regulations, and Definitions:  The regulations apply to all businesses in Zimbabwe with an asset value of or above US $500 000[sections 3 & 4].  The term “business” is defined in the Act as meaning companies, associations, syndicates and partnerships whose object is the acquisition of gain;  effectively this covers everything other than literary and charitable associations.  The term “asset value” is not defined, however, and is not at all clear:  does it mean net assets, share capital [issued or nominal] or what?

The term “indigenous Zimbabwean”, as defined in the Act, is also unclear.  It means anyone who, before Independence, was subjected to unfair discrimination [presumably in Zimbabwe] on the ground of their race, and includes a descendant of such a person.  So more people are covered than would ordinarily be regarded as indigenous Zimbabweans:  Indians and Chinese suffered discrimination before Independence, so they and their descendants must be regarded as indigenous Zimbabweans for the purpose of the Act and the regulations.

Businesses Must Submit Forms to Minister by 15th April:  Under section 4 of the regulations, all businesses with an asset value of more than US $500 000 must send the Minister a form [which is set out in the regulations] showing the extent to which they are indigenised and, if they are not majority-owned by indigenous Zimbabweans, their plans for indigenisation;  these plans must conform with guidelines provided in the form [though in fact there aren’t any such guidelines].  Existing businesses must submit the form to the Minister by the 15th April but it is not a criminal offence to fail to submit the form — if a business fails to do so, the Minister can send it a form and order the business to complete it;  only if the business fails to comply with the Minister’s order will it commit an offence [section 4(4)].

Minister’s Response to Forms:  Having received a form from a business, the Minister has 45 days within which either to approve the business’s indigenisation plans or to make his approval dependent on the plans’ conformity with a notice which the Minister is supposed to publish in theGazette before the 1st March 2011 [see section 5(1) & (4)].  Since the Minister has not published such a notice, and since there are no guidelines in the form indicating how indigenisation plans are to be prepared, the effect of the regulations is that the Minister must approve all plans submitted to him.  That may not be what was intended, but it is certainly the effect of section 5.  And if the Minister makes no “positive response” [whatever that means] to a plan that has been submitted to him, the plan is deemed to have been approved [section 5(5)].

Indigenisation when Businesses Merged or Split Up:  Section 6 deals with the indigenisation of businesses that are merged, where the merger falls within the purview of the Competition Commission under the Competition Act.  In such cases the merger is subject to the Minister’s approval, which will be granted if he considers that it conforms to targets set out in an approved indigenisation plan.

Section 7, similarly, deals with the splitting up of businesses whose asset value exceeds US $500 000.  The resultant businesses will have to conform to indigenisation targets set out in a plan approved by the Minister.

Indigenisation when Controlling Interest Relinquished: If a person or company that controls a business whose asset value exceeds US $500 000 relinquishes control over the business, the transaction will have to be approved by the Minister, and the approval will be conditional on the transaction conforming with indigenisation targets set out in an approved indigenisation plan [section 8].

Effect on Investment Licence Applications: Under section 9, anyone who “projects or proposes an investment for which an investment licence is required in terms of the Zimbabwe Investment Authority Act” will have to obtain the Minister’s approval before obtaining such a licence, and “any investor requiring a licence in terms of the Zimbabwe Investment Authority Act” will have to obtain the Minister’s approval before investing in sectors of the economy which are listed in the Third Schedule [these sectors include agriculture, transport, “wholesale or retail trade”, barber shops, advertising agencies and milk processing — it is a rather disparate list].  Although the section does not say so, one must assume that the Minister’s approval will be conditional upon satisfactory provision for indigenisation.  The problem with this section is that it presupposes that investors need a licence from the Investment Authority before they can invest in Zimbabwe.  That is not so:  there is no such requirement.  As a result, people can invest in any sector in Zimbabwe without complying with the regulations, so long as they avoid obtaining a licence from the Investment Authority.  If, however, their investment creates a business worth more than US $500 000, they will have to prepare an indigenisation plan in accordance with section 4 of the regulations.

Procurement Contracts: Much the same anomaly occurs in section 12, which deals with the sub-contracting of procurement contracts.  Under the section, if goods or services are obtained from a supplier under the Procurement Act and the supplier is not controlled by indigenous Zimbabweans, the supplier must subcontract to competent indigenous businesses — but only if the supplier “is required by the Act [i.e. the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act ] to subcontract to businesses whose controlling interests are held by indigenous Zimbabweans.”  The problem is that the Act itself does not require anyone to subcontract to indigenous Zimbabweans;  it merely allows regulations to impose such a requirement [see section 3(1)(g) and (4) of the Act].  Hence there is no situation in which section 12 can operate, and parties to procurement contracts can subcontract freely to indigenous or non-indigenous contractors.

Regular Reports to Minister: Under section 13, businesses will have to satisfy the Minister annually that they are indigenising in accordance with the law.

Official Database of Would-be Indigenous Partners: Under section 15 the Minister will establish a database of people who want indigenous Zimbabweans to acquire an interest in their businesses, and of indigenous Zimbabweans who wish to “partner” those people.  There is no provision allowing the Minister to compel businesses to take on particular indigenous Zimbabweans, and there is no such provision in the Act.  It is not correct, therefore, to say that the Minister will be able to foist politically-acceptable “partners” upon reluctant businesses.

Can the Regulations be Legally Challenged?
Constitutional Validity:  Are the regulations constitutionally valid?  They are certainly discriminatory, in that they favour indigenous over non-indigenous Zimbabweans and the discrimination is based on race.  On the other hand, they are intended to implement an affirmative action programme for the advancement of people who were previously disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, and as such they are authorised by section 23(3)(g) of the Constitution.

It might be argued that the regulations contravene section 21 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of association.  That freedom extends to commercial activities such as the right to form companies and partnerships.  Partners have a fiduciary relationship with one another and it is obviously important that they should have the greatest freedom to choose their fellow-partners.  Much the same applies to company directors.  A law which compels partners and directors to take someone into their partnership or company on the ground of that person’s race, or on the ground that that person had previously suffered unfair discrimination, undoubtedly limits their freedom of association.  This argument has some merit, but it is unlikely that a Zimbabwean court would adopt it in order to declare the regulations unconstitutional.

Unreasonable penalties? There is one further ground on which the regulations could be challenged:  the penalties prescribed in them are out of all proportion to the conduct sought to be penalised.  In every case, whether the prohibited conduct consists in the making of a false statement or merely failing to submit a form to the Minister, the penalty is the same:  a fine of US $2 000 or five years’ imprisonment, or both.  That is the maximum penalty the Minister is allowed to prescribe in the regulations, and by prescribing it in all cases he has laid himself open to this challenge.

Veritas makes every effort to ensure reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied

This is because the EU knows by now that Robert Mugabe has no intention of honouring his side of the power sharing agreement – sanctions or no sanctions. The Zanu-PF leadership reneged before; they will certainly renege again.

While Robert Mugabe’s spokesmen repeat the presidential decision: “No more concessions under the GPA until sanctions are lifted,”  it is clear that Zanu-PF will never proceed with anything that might undermine its grip on real power in Zimbabwe – no matter how many pieces of paper are signed or how many promises made in the glare of international news coverage.

Because British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would ‘be guided’ by what Tsvangirai’s opinion was, Mugabe’s propaganda machine has gone into paroxysms of finger-pointing. Their spin-doctors are waxing shrill on the subject. The Prime Minister must call for the (harsh/ illegal/damaging) sanctions to be lifted, they scream. “The MDC is not playing it’s role to have them lifted,” shrieks Ephraim Masawi, the Zanu-PF mouthpiece of the moment.

Zanu-PF MPs have obediently leapt in to make a shouting match of it in Parliament, wasting the legislators’ precious time by forcing ‘sanctions’ onto the agenda.

But the sanctions issue is a sideshow.

In the GPA, the item regarding sanctions says that all signatories agreed:-

(a)   to endorse the SADC resolution on sanctions concerning Zimbabwe;
- This has been done at every SADC meeting in the last 12 months.

(b)  that all forms of measures and sanctions against Zimbabwe be lifted in order to facilitate a sustainable solution to the challenges that are currently facing Zimbabwe;
- This specifies sanctions against Zimbabwe, and not against individual Zimbabweans or their businesses. The Finance Minister is working on the financial restrictions against selected parastatals and those which curtail new borrowing – two aspects that could be interpreted as harmful to the nation should a new democratic regime come to power. And even the arms embargoes are presently not a challenge. The ‘challenges currently facing Zimbabwe’ have not been caused by targeted sanctions and will not be solved by lifting any of them.

(c)  commit themselves to working together in re-engaging the international community with a view to bringing to an end the country’s international isolation;
- Zimbabwe is not isolated, it runs embassies all over the world and can trade with any nation. Both Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai BIti, (neither of whom have travel bans etc. against them), have been re-engaging the international community continuously over the last 12 months. And if, perhaps, a number of individuals wish their travel bans to be lifted in order to flee into exile – their cases would undoubtedly be considered.

It is clear that Morgan Tsvangirai cannot wave a magic wand and remove the 8-year-old legislation in foreign countries – because he is unable to report any real progress to the USA, UK, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So the sanctions stay in place,  Zanu-PF claims an excuse for non-performance and refuses to budge. That the party is already in blatant breach of the Agreement is deliberately ignored.

Targeted sanctions against the listed Zanu-PF officers and members and their ill-gotten business interests should be fully supported both inside and outside Zimbabwe. This includes a continued arms embargo for as long as these weapons are being used against innocent civilians by partisan forces.

Targeted sanctions should be lifted ONLY under the following conditions:

•  The permanent return of the Rule of Law to Zimbabwe under a new democratically formulated constitution accepted by two-thirds majority of the people in a free and fair referendum.

•  An irreversible shift in military power from the Zanu-PF presidency to parliament. Note, even if the GPA is fulfilled to the letter it still does not give the people this shift in power.

•  That the details of each of the sanctioned persons’ foreign bank accounts and assets should be subject to legal scrutiny, revealed to the public, then subjected to retrospective income tax, as well as a special 60%  ‘Reparations Levy’. The yields from this levy to be put into independently-managed poverty alleviation projects and compensation for victims of political violence and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.

Verryn was suspended last week by the Methodist Church of Southern Africa and is facing two disciplinary charges.

The first relates to his initiating a court action to have a curator appointed to ensure the best interests of destitute, orphaned children living in the church.  The Methodist Church claims he did so without authority.

According to The Mail & Guardian of 22 January, “the application followed ongoing wrangles between the church and the Gauteng government, which accused Verryn of refusing to co-operate with social workers who had wanted to move the Zimbabwean children to proper homes and shelters.”

Verryn had said it was essential that someone with sufficient experience – and an independent – be formally and legally empowered to protect the best interests of the children.

Last year, the SA Council of Churches claimed that the government was the main problem, not Verryn. “These people moved into (the church) because it responded to a humanitarian crisis, to which few other people, including local, provincial and national government, responded.”

The second charge relates to Verryn’s talking to the media, despite being instructed not to do so.

Dr Peter Storey, the former Methodist Bishop of Johannesburg, who worked closely with Verryn in the 1980s and 1990s, described him in an interview in 2005 as “a grass roots activist”.

Storey said that “Paul won the hearts of the Soweto community through his identification with their struggle during the worst years of apartheid.”

Verryn’s involvement with Zimbabwean refugees came to prominence in 2006 as starvation tightened its grip across South Africa’s northern neighbour.

Desperate exiles – including women and young children – were fleeing the country in the hope of finding jobs and security in Johannesburg, but ending up destitute on the inner-city streets.

Appalled to discover increasing numbers of asylum-seekers living rough under dangerous conditions, Bishop Verryn began working tirelessly with volunteers and staff to provide food and shelter in the Central Methodist Mission.

By mid March, more than 200 people were living in the church building.  Women and children were sleeping in the sanctuary while men, wrapped in blankets and sleeping head-to-toe were accommodated in the meeting rooms above.

“Inner-city missions like the Central Methodist in Johannesburg are hugely important to meet the needs of the poor, but resources for this ministry are thin,” wrote Dr Martine Stemerick in an article published in News From Africa.

“What we need first of all is funding to get this building into a state of acceptable cleanliness,” Verryn told Stemerick.

“The second would be if we could cook at least one balanced meal at a central spot every day for everybody because people are scrounging all sorts of food from rubbish bins,” he explained. “And once one starts that kind of feeding scheme, it needs to be sustainable.”

As the numbers sheltering at the church grew, Verryn found himself with teachers, accountants, computer technicians, qualified nurses, wire artists, people who could tie trout flies, ballroom dancers and amateur dramatists.

With Verryn’s encouragement, classes were set up, young children were helped with reading and writing and qualified teachers or parents were assigned to read books to them in the evening.

Verryn said he prayed that people would begin to recognise that this is a “God moment” for us in South Africa, and that Zimbabweans from the DRC and other exiles who seek help are a gift, especially to the Christian community.

“It’s an opportunity for us to be… transformation agents and to recognise that the people who come across our borders may be the people who ultimately are the agents of change when they return to their countries.”

“This is an opportunity for us … to inculcate standards of care and humanity that anticipate a changed Africa,” Verryn explained.

In recent months the Central Methodist Mission has been overwhelmed with the volume of destitute immigrants reaching out to the church for help.

In an effort not to turn away those in greatest need, numbers have reached beyond 2 000, which is an impossible number to accommodate in a building where amenities are stretched to the limit – and beyond.

The campaign to support Verryn includes a campaign via Facebook.

“The work that Paul does is remarkable and he has always done it…. He is absolutely driven by God towards love for the poor…”, wrote one supporter.

“He did not turn away those in need.  Other doors were closed, while his was open…. He is a liberation theologist in action,” wrote another.

“I am currently on a committee which he chairs (Church Unity Commission Central Committee), and I can personally vouch for him as a man of great integrity, courage, intelligence and godliness,” commented Mark Spyke.

We opened up our Sunday Mail newspaper this week to find a lengthy rant, teeming with salacious lies, from the much-loathed spin doctor Jonathan Moyo. Moyo, clearly anxious to prostrate himself at the feet of the party in the hope of slithering back into the Central committee at the Zanu-PF Congress, is gabbling the required propaganda with all his might. The remaining lies originate from party parrot Tafataona Mahoso, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa, and some leaked minutes from a Zanu-PF meeting, which truly reflect the essence of Zanu-PF: a system based on lies.

The Lie
Zanu-PF: The party enjoys ‘widespread support’ among the people of Zimbabwe.

The Reality
So how come nobody’s buying party cards this year? A report quoted in The Independent revealed that out of 1.6 million party cards issued for sale at $1 each, only $675 has been raised so far. Official research has put Zanu-PF’s popularity at 10%, maximum. The main event in the party this year, its national Congress, has failed to attract significant funding, in spite of all its top members being multi-millionnaires.

The Lie
Moyo: Minister Biti clearly has an evil political temptation to roll back the gains of the historic land reform programme by underfunding it in the hope of starving it to death because he is fundamentally opposed to it.

The Reality
What gains? The land “reform” programme as implemented by Zanu-PF did nothing but destroy the agriculture sector, disown thousands of farmers of land, and foster a culture of corruption. Biti is not opposed to the basic tenets of the land reform plan, he is opposed to Zanu’s warped version of it. Biti is trying to stop the theft that is masquerading as land reform. Instead, he is allocating $31 million to a land audit meant to take stock of who owns what, and which will lead to the transparent and fair implementation of an equitable land reform programme.

The Lie
Moyo: Minister Biti’s evil political temptation to entrench the current multi-currency economic framework up to 2015 [is] to the detriment of the majority poor, unemployed and homeless in our country.

The Reality
Who created all those poor, unemployed and homeless, Jono? Would they be better off now with worthless quintillion-dollar notes? The economy needs time to recover and grow; 2015 is an estimate, and Minister Biti made it clear that it was a unanimous Government position that a return to the Zimbabwean dollar could not be seriously considered until there is evidence of a strong economy. So JM, you’re out of line with this one! The government has started consultations on an optimum currency regime, which will be followed by open debate and public discussion next year.

The Lie
Moyo: While the spirit of this [Constituency Development] Fund is most welcome, its letter is very dangerous and smacks of a sinister plot to create new space for the extension of the MDC-T’s parallel government into the heart of the rural areas.

The Reality
The Constituency Development Fund will give MPs something to use in their constituencies to kick-start community reconstruction and employment projects and make desperately needed improvements in people’s lives. Zanu-PF and its Affirmative Action Group (AAG) decry this as a sinister ‘vote-buying plot’. But the money will go to ALL members of parliament, Jono. Why not let’s see which MPs – Zanu-PF or MDC – actually get to work and deliver improvements in their constituencies? A ‘dangerous’ thought indeed!!

The Lie
Minutes leaked from a recent secret meeting of Zanu-PF: Our aim in this exercise is make Zanu-PF, our liberation party, be the sole party with the mandate to rule Zimbabwe ad infinitum by mobilising Zimbabweans to rally behind the party and continue holding on to the tested and proven able leadership of our gallant son of Africa, His Excellency, President RG Mugabe.

The Reality
Well, the first part isn’t much of a lie, but it proves yet again that Zanu has no interest in sharing power with the MDC. But the “tested and proven able leadership” of “RG Mugabe”? Even Zanu must have had a laugh writing that one! RG (Rotten and Greedy) Mugabe has succeeded as a dictator but failed dismally as a leader.

The Lie
Minutes: In safeguarding our gains of the independence and national sovereignty, our enemy the MDC, at the same time, is wide awake and clandestinely working day and night with its supporters to hand over our Zimbabwe to the whites.

The Reality
“Clandestinely”? Been watching too many Bond movies? (Although you do rehash the same script over and over and over again.) It’s a complete fabrication that MDC wants to hand over Zimbabwe to the ‘whites (which whites?) – and if you insist on using racial terms, the MDC’s supporters are 99% black. All the MDC is trying to do is to move the country away from a Zanu-PF dictatorship to a multi-party democracy – which by the way would include Zanu-PF!

The Lie
Mahoso: In Zimbabwe, we are also dealing with US, UK and EU sanctions which have killed women and children.

The Reality
“Shopping” and “travel” sanctions, targeted at a small group of Zanu kleptocracy, have not and will never kill women and children (but great way to use vulnerable groups to aid your manipulation!). HIV/Aids, cholera, malnutrition, violence, etc. These are what have killed women and children, all thanks to Bob. And we hope that the weapons embargo is more likely to save people than kill them.

The Lie
Justice and Legal Affairs Minister Patrick Chinamasa accused local MDC councillors in Makoni district, of hijacking a food distribution exercise by Irish humanitarian agency, GOAL, in order to score political points. (The MDC legislator for Makoni North, John Nyamande, was killed two weeks ago in yet another car accident involving an MDC official).

The Reality
Chinamasa is after the Makoni North seat. His party, Zanu-PF have for many years been buying votes for with food and farm inputs, so he assumes instantly that MDC will do the same. However after an investigation, JOMIC officials dismissed the allegations, warning that no political party should interfere with food distribution exercises.

December is the 30th anniversary of the death of General Josiah Tongogara and people across Zimbabwe believe that for any future reconciliation to take place, the truth of his death must finally be revealed.

Zimbabweans have also raised the issue of Lieutenant General Lookout Masuku’s death in 1986 since rumours persist that he was tortured and poisoned in prison.

Tongogara was a revered commander of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) in then Rhodesia. The party at the time expected him to be the first president of Zimbabwe, with Robert Mugabe, head of ZANLA’s political wing, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), as prime minister.

At the Lancaster House Agreement in 1979, which paved the way for independence the following year in war-torn Zimbabwe, Tongogara was reported to have been a crucial moderating force.

However, since Tongogara openly favoured unity between ZANU and Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) party, he is said to have had heated differences with Mugabe about the direction the country should take after independence in 1980.

Just six days after Mugabe signed the Lancaster House Agreement, Tongogara was killed in a car accident in Mozambique on Boxing Day on his way back to Harare.

He had returned to Mozambique, where ZANLA was based, to inform his soldiers about the Agreement and the ceasefire.

A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) briefing of December 28, 1979, described Tongogara as a potential rival to Mugabe because of his ambition, popularity and decisive style.

He was seen as someone who could build lasting peace and reconciliation with his enemies – traits which would have been invaluable in Zimbabwe today.

Tongogara’s hurried burial, without a proper autopsy, led to suspicions which still persist that he had been murdered. He was buried at Heroes’ Acre outside Harare and Solomon Mujuru took over as head of ZANLA.

Lieutenant General Lookout Masuku

The cause of Lieutenant General Lookout Masuku’s death has also remained a contentious issue.

Masuku commanded the forces of Joshua Nkomo in the guerrilla war against the government of Ian Smith and after independence Masuku became deputy commander of the national army.

In 1982, he was arrested with Nkomo’s military intelligence chief, Dumiso Dabengwa, on charges of plotting a coup against Prime Minister Robert Mugabe’s two-year-old government.

Although both Masuku and Dabengwa were acquitted in 1983, both were immediately detained again under emergency powers similar to those used by the Smith regime.

Masuku died three years later on April 5 at Harare’s Parirenyatwa Hospital, reportedly from meningitis, although many people believed the circumstances were suspicious.

Joshua Nkomo, addressing the tens of thousands of mourners at Masuku’s funeral, said that Lookout, after all his sacrifices, had died a pauper.

“We cannot blame colonialism and imperialism for this tragedy,” said Nkomo. “We who fought against these things now practice them.”

Nkomo went on to question why Zimbabwe was enveloped in the politics of hate.  “What Zimbabwe fought for was peace, progress, love, respect, justice and equality, not the opposite.

“There is something radically wrong with our country today and we are moving, fast, towards destruction,” said Nkomo regretfully. “One of the worst evils we see today is corruption. The country bleeds today because of corruption.”

Masuku was not accorded the honour of being buried in Heroes’ Acre, instead he was laid to rest near Bulawayo.

Calls for commemoration

Zimbabwe Democracy Now calls on both factions of the MDC and Zanu-PF to ensure that flags fly at half-mast on Boxing Day to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Tongogara’s death.

It is a national scandal that a whole generation has grown up with little knowledge of brave men such as these and the true heritage of the liberation struggle.

Instead, many of the people who survived the war have gone on to become fabulously rich, forgetting those who died to put them in their current positions. Masuku, after all his sacrifices, died in poverty.

Sources close to the reformed ZAPU party have indicated that there are plans next year to organise an annual commemoration of Masuku’s death. We believe this will be an important contribution to national reconciliation.

Mrs Ethel Moyo, Spokesperson, Zimbabwe Democracy Now

Rules for the Rulers [19:23m]: Download

One is the arms embargo and targeted travel ban on individuals, which ZanuPF shrilly denounces as ‘illegal sanctions’.
The other is the existence of shortwave radio stations that are not under their direct control.

The world is clearly not allowed to do things without ZanuPF’s permission!

But, with ZanuPF’s blessing, anything goes:
On 7 September 2009, the (ZanuPF) Minister of Media, Information and Publicity, Webster Shamu,  was ‘delighted’ to launch H-Metro, a new daily tabloid which has been published without a license by the Zimpapers group, in violation of the current media laws.

Minister Shamu used the occasion to attack ‘pirate’ radio stations which, he claimed, were being enabled by the MDC element in government:

“…what must also stop is the continuing situation where some parties in the GPA continue to aid and abet illegal, extraterritorial pirate broadcasts which violate our sovereignty in the name of media freedoms. The GPA the often quoted GPA – disallows this as gross external interference in the affairs of our country. These stations – all of them sited in countries that have slapped Zimbabwe with sanctions – are a violation of the GPA. To the extent that they persist well into the Inclusive Government, they amount to an outstanding matter which must be addressed by those who needed them, indeed created and legitimised them in the name of struggling for their own brand of democracy here.”

SW Radio Africa, ‘The Independent Voice of Zimbabwe’ was asked to comment on the minister’s statement, and if indeed they would obediently shut down if ‘some parties in the GPA’ asked them to. Their reply was:

SW Radio Africa would like to reiterate that it is not ‘pirate’ radio station. Our broadcasts are legal under international law governing shortwave radio broadcasts.
Additionally we won the right to set up Zimbabwe’s first independent radio station in the country’s Supreme Court – when the full bench of the court agreed with our right to freedom of expression under Zimbabwe’s constitution. Unfortunately Robert Mugabe used his presidential powers to overturn that court ruling and have us forcibly shut down in 2000. Since then no independent radio station has been licensed.
We regret the fact that the closure of ‘external’ radio stations is part of the GPA, as we are a private and independent company staffed and managed by Zimbabweans, and no one has any influence or control over our broadcasts.
We would not voluntarily shut down if asked by the MDC or the GPA, or anyone else, as we believe absolutely in the right of Zimbabweans to have access to free and independent news and information.
Gerry Jackson
Station Manager

Minister Shamu’s allegations that ‘some parties’ in Zimbabwe’s inclusive government created, or have control over, external radio stations remain to be proved. Voice of America’s Studio 7 also broadcasts into Zimbabwe.

The minister insists that the provisions in the GPA regarding the media should be followed to the letter – but the privatisation of ZBC is not on his agenda. Perhaps Finance Minister Biti should consider ZBC and the Zimpapers shareholding in his list of state assets to be sold off.

Is there is now a case for the other members of the GPA to sit on the board of both ZBC and Zimpapers? If the Zimpapers Group is 70% owned by the Inclusive Government, surely all partners in the GPA should have equal representation on the Zimpapers board of directors?

Media groups are already calling for the suspension of all Zimpapers titles on the grounds that they have not been properly licensed. ZWNews reported that: “Media analysts have suggested that if H-Metro is – as the minister claims - not owned by the state, then it needs a permit, without which government would have no option but to shut it down. The same would apply to any other unlicenced mastheads in the ZimPapers stable.”

In his speech Minister Shamu emphasised that Zimpapers was government owned, with a 70% majority shareholding, adding, “Let it be pronounced here that Zimpapers is not a State enterprise.”  He then pointed out that wholly state-owned media (such as the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation) were exempt from the media laws.
“My ministry will not condone the breaking of the law,” he declared.

Is he a schizophrenic? No. He is just using standard ZanuPF dual-thinking techniques: The law must be applied, except to ourselves.

Zimbabwe:  Targeted sanctions must remain in place until the targeted persons and organisations mend their ways.

Zanu-PF’s preoccupation with shopping expeditions for 250 of its members, when the nation needs every cent for food and basic services, is outrageous.

Led by Vice-President Joice Mujuru, the party’s petulant cries for ‘illegal sanctions’ to be lifted are unlikely to produce the desired results, since the  individuals on the list have done nothing that might persuade the US and Europe to lift them.

But the Zanu-PF spin doctors assert that the MDC is somehow able to lift these sanctions – which only affect those directly responsible for destroying the country and undermining its democracy: Zanu-PF officials, family members and corrupt business associates.

The Zanu-PF owned Herald newspaper leader (August 17, 2009) noted: “We hail the resolution made by the Zanu-PF Politburo calling on the MDC formations to honour their part of the bargain instead of making endless demands without ceding anything, a stance that implies a sinister motive.”

The Herald would do well to remember that the lifting of targeted sanctions is the prerogative of the countries that imposed them – long before the GPA was even mooted.

The United States and the European Union have stated repeatedly that they will lift sanctions only once certain minimum criteria – the very issues that Zanu-PF refuses to address – are met.

Desperate to Shop

The sanctions Zanu-PF is so desperate to see lifted are the United States’ perfectly legal refusal to allow the 250 people on their list to visit their country; a ban on weapons of war to be sold to Zimbabwe or for Americans to trade with specified (Zanu-PF-controlled) local companies.

Canada banned arms exports to Zimbabwe, froze the assets of top Zimbabwean officials and banned Zimbabwean aircraft from Canadian airspace.

The EU sanctions, linked to the former government’s abuse of an EU election observer, are milder: 160 people may not visit EU countries, there is an arms embargo and a prohibition on technical or financial assistance to the military.

The only bright light in this sorry tale of Zanu-PF greed and deception is that some of its ministers – most likely those currently without direct access to illicit funds – must be struggling to maintain their lavish lifestyles on US$300 a month.

Certainly the car lots in Harare bulge with second hand luxury vehicles and it may explain their desperation to travel to the despised West.