Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

The proposal to establish a Human Rights Commission in Zimbabwe, a body whose mandate will be to investigate and promote human rights issues is an important one. Since the colonial era to the present, Zimbabwe has known no culture of human rights and yet evidence is abound in international law on the universality and the special regime status that the human rights discourse has attained. The question that we ought to ask ourselves as Zimbabweans is whether the ruling ZANU PF elite, that have been the biggest human rights violator since the attainment of independence in 1980 should be the one to spearhead the debate on the establishment of a Human Rights Commission. Phillip Pasirayi from the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition assesses the proposal.

The Human Rights Commission and the issues at stake
Phillip Pasirayi

This article locates the current debate on the establishment of a Human Rights Commission in Zimbabwe and the commitment of President Robert Mugabe's government in establishing a professional and independent Human Rights Commission in line with the norms in other countries within Africa, Europe and Asia. Issues that I shall consider in this discussion are to do with the political impediments that will render the process of establishing a Human Rights Commission in Zimbabwe futile and far much divorced from the State's obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of the citizenry.

The proposal to establish a Human Rights Commission in Zimbabwe, a body whose mandate will be to investigate and promote human rights issues is an important one. Since the colonial era to the present, Zimbabwe has known no culture of human rights and yet evidence is abound in international law on the universality and the special regime status that the human rights discourse has attained. The question that we ought to ask ourselves as Zimbabweans is whether the ruling ZANU PF elite, that have been the biggest human rights violator since the attainment of independence in 1980 should be the one to spearhead the debate on the establishment of a Human Rights Commission.

The continental human rights watchdog, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) has condemned Harare on more than one occasion for violating human rights. The recently concluded 38th Ordinary Session of ACPHR held in Banjul, The Gambia in December 2005 was unequivocal in its condemnation of the Zimbabwean government for being the main perpetrator of human rights. Prominent human rights activist Gabriel Shumba who himself is a victim of government torture and a group of Zimbabwean civil society representatives testified before the Commission about the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe.

If the human rights situation in Zimbabwe is in a sorry state who then should be entrusted with the responsibility to spearhead the initiative for establishing an independent Human Rights Commission. Recently, Patrick Chinamasa, the Zimbabwean Minister of Justice was reported in the State media saying that the ZANU PF highest decision-making body, the Politburo had endorsed the proposal to establish a Human Rights Commission. So far there has not been critical debate about the implications of these overtures but what is clear is the people's disgruntlement with the government of President Mugabe for confusing governmental affairs with ZANU PF business. The same thinking was demonstrated when it was the same Politburo that was the first to discuss the establishment of an Electoral Commission.

The question of who is the best person or what is the best institution to spearhead the debate regarding the Human Rights Commission begs another fundamental dimension to the process of establishing a more functional human rights regime in Zimbabwe. This is the idea of legitimacy. After being suspended and its subsequent withdrawal from the Commonwealth for alleged human rights violations in 2003 and the sanctions imposed by the European Union and the United States, again for human rights abuses, the government of President Mugabe should be the last one to be entrusted with a crucial process of establishing a Human Rights Commission.

At both the domestic and international level, the legitimacy of the government of Zimbabwe is under serious contestation and so are the outputs. The proposed Human Rights Commission is yet another attempt by the ruling elite to hoodwink the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African Union (AU) and the entire international community that ZANU PF is reforming and that it should be embraced as a democratic country.

There is also need to critically reflect on the reasons that government is giving in establishing the Human Rights Commission. Minister Chinamasa told the weekly paper, The Sunday Mail of March 26, 2005 that the proposal to establish the Commission is "merely in line with the trends" within the region and in Africa. He argued: "We are setting up an independent institution that can investigate everybody, including state actors. So it will have the same independence as our judiciary and our Zimbabwe Electoral Commission."

In Zimbabwe's body politic the history of Commissions, moreso on such contested issues such as human rights is fraught with irregularities. After the massacre and torture by State security agents of thousands of Zimbabwean defenceless citizens in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces during the early 80s, President Mugabe appointed a Commission led by Justice Chihambakwe to investigate human rights abuses but decades have passed without the report known to the public. It is this lack of political commitment and sheer Machiavellian tendencies that will render the Human Rights Commission debate another monumental failure. An example that is still fresh in people's memories is the heavily condemned Operation Murambatsvina. A report on Murambatsvina entitled, "State Fear: Zimbabwe's Tragedy is Africa's Shame" written by Archbishop Pius Ncube et al exposes the government's conduct which did not pay attention to the human rights of the affected people. The report draws comparisons between President Mugabe and Pol Pot, the former leader of the genocidal Khyme Rouge regime in Cambodia.

Some scholars would ask how the proposed Human Rights Commission would start its work against a background of concealment of the truth regarding human rights violations. By proposing to establish a Human Rights Commission, Zanu PF may unknowingly be driving a final nail on its coffin. For it to be relevant the proposed Human Rights Commission must begin with recovering the truth about Gukurahundi and the murder of scores of Movement for Democratic Change activists including Talent Mabika , Petros Jeka, Morgan Chiminya to mention a few and the disappearance of democracy-yearning young Zimbabweans such as Patrick Nabanyama.

The mandate of the Human Rights Commission in Zimbabwe must investigate all the atrocities committed since the attainment of independence in 1980. The Commission can go a long way in restoring a culture of openness, accountability and the establishment of the rule-of-law in Zimbabwe if its mandate is clearly defined from the onset. In its investigations, the Commission must not merely be a platform for vengeance but must seek broader ways of achieving justice and begin a process of national healing and national development. Public acknowledgement of past atrocities and naming of perpetrators goes a long way in restoring relationships in a fractured society like Zimbabwe.

The Commission must be staffed by people of integrity who have a proven record of human rights activism. Appointment to the Human Rights Commission must be done transparently and in a manner that restores the confidence of the public in State institutions and credentials must go beyond mere paper qualifications but this might be the opportunity to resuscitate the process of national healing and appointment of members of the clergy such as Bishops Trevor Manhanga, Sebastian Bakare, Patrick Mutume, Reverend Charles Chiriseri, Dr Rev Charles Mugaviri , Dr Rev Goodwill Shana and many other man of cloth could go a long way in restoring the people's trust in national institutions. In the past President Mugabe has handpicked his close associates to run public institutions and this has severely compromised the independence and impartiality of those institutions.

With the way ZANU PF abuses its majority in Parliament, it is difficult to argue that appointment to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission must be done through the Legislature. This vindicates Dr Lovemore Madhuku, a Constitutional law expert and leader of the National Constitutional Assembly who has argued that without a new constitution, ZANU PF will continue to tinker with the laws and amend the Constitution as it pleases. Madhuku argues: "We want a human rights commission since there are several unreported and unattended to human rights abuses since 1980 but especially in the last six years. But the commission we want is one which all people will claim ownership to, not this one which (Minister) Chinamasa and (President) Mugabe are planning."

The legitimacy question of both Zanu PF and the process of establishing a Human Rights Commission, including its mandate are no doubt matters of great contention. It remains to be seen how Zimbabweans will view the proposed Human Rights Commission, if at all they are afforded the opportunity to voice their concerns.

Ironically the talk to establish a Human Rights Commission comes hard on the heels of the arrest and unjustified incarceration of opposition politicians in Manicaland on accusations of planning an assassination plot against President Mugabe and the detention and expulsion of student leaders for demonstrating against poverty in Zimbabwean colleges and universities.

* Phillip Pasirayi-is Director of Information for Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, an NGO advocating for human rights and good governance in Zimbabwe.

* Please send comments to [email protected]