I do want to commend Henning for his piece on Namibia and what is being lost in the process of clamping down on those who are seeking to heal the wounds of a liberation process which has maimed, tortured and killed some of the best among Africans.

Thank you Henning for pointing out what more could be lost if we do not raise the same voices which led to removing the shackles of apartheid. As I see it, the way truth and reconciliation processes have been dealt with, especially from the South African example, have left a lot to be desired. I am not interested in going through a step by step analysis of what was wrong. One could go for a long time. For those who are interested in seeing how a novelist has offered his view on how to go about healing, I recommend Ayi Kwei Armah's Healers which came out in 1978 as a disguised response to Chinua Achebe's things Fall Apart.

Armah's Healers, I am sure, will have its detractors, but it shows that the only way to heal from any wound, however deep is to go back to the most positive values of our societies, unflinchingly and without fear. Unfortunately, fear is one of the emotions most easily used and abused by those who want to insist on only one truth, their own.

Yet, healing, the desire to heal, like love, is one of the most universal emotions. Leaders who would lead their people toward reconciliation and healing would bring out all the burried truths which, like all truths, sooner or later, shall come out anyway. Such leaders should let go of their own fears or shame. Fears of being accused of being weak, shame of knowing specific cases of people who should never ever been tortured, maimed or killed.

To heal is probably one of the most difficult things to do because, given the dominant mindset, it is perceived as a sign of weakness to accept that something wrong has been done to oneself or to others. The dominant mindset stresses power through relentless violence. The enslavers and then the colonizers used to remind themselves that the only thing Africans understood was violence and brutal force. The more brutal the better. The dominant mindset can be seen at work in the Middle East, in Darfur, in Irak. It is highly contagious, especially among those who end up exercising state power. I remember reading about someone who had been in Robben Island (No it was not Mandela) and who had written a piece in a philosophy journal. His main point was that thefight against apartheid was a double fight: one to free the whites from themselves and then to free the blacks from the yoke of apartheid.

The equation has not changed: one has to continue fighting to free those who are in power to free themselves from how they have come to define power in the very same way as the previous holders. Real, deep, lasting healing can only happen as far away from the shackles of state power. If state or parastatal rationale is brought to bear it will derail any serious attempt to heal. Healing can only happen if all sides let go of habits and difinitions which are antagonistic to healing.

Can one heal without the help of state power? Indeed, the only way to heal is without the help of state power.

I shall stop here because it is my sense that Henning has touched upon one of the rawest wounds not just left over from colonial rule, but from way way back, from many layers. In that spirit, would it be wrong to suggest to the scandinavian countries which decided to pull away from Namibia that there are other possibilities (and, who knows, maybe they are doing it), such as encouraging European nations, the Vatican, the US, Arab nations which benefited from Atlantic and Oriental slavery to acknowledge what happened as a crime against humanity. The size of which is difficult to measure, except by going through a healing process where the primary concern is to heal from the mindset which developed out of the consequences (the benefits) of the crime. If it is started as a genuine process, then it could lead to real, deep and long lasting healing. Not just for Africans, not just for the victims, but for all humanity.

Thank you again Henning.

Zimbabwe posted a trade deficit of US$189,000,000 in the first six months of 2007 against China, the price of a costly marriage of convenience founded on Harare’s quest for friendship and Beijing’s search for cheap raw materials. Bi-lateral trade between the two countries clocked US$205,000,00 between January and June, almost 80 per cent of the US$270,000,000 registered during the whole of 2006.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem argues that Western posturing against Zimbabwe, particularly in the case of the British, stokes the cause of the Mugabe apologists. Instead, he argues, solidarity should be with the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, who should not be distracted from demanding their government be held accountable to them.

There are very few African political activists who have been publicly consistent in their criticisms of
President Mugabe and ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. I am one of them. But we are not very many. That is not because Africans do not care about what is happening in Zimbabwe; but because the external dimension: regime-change agenda induced from UK and US, and internal racial dynamics of the struggle have both combined to work in Mugabe's favour.

My position is made more difficult by the fact that I was until early last year Secretary-General of the Pan African Movement. Mugabe is indeed one of the most respected and admired leaders in the Pan African Movement, so how can I be criticising one of our icons?

Readers who routinely sent me text or email messages: 'well said'; 'aluta continua comrade'; 'give it to them man', etc, have been outraged by my stand on Zimbabwe and Mugabe. One close comrade, a well respected academic lawyer, wrote to me stating categorically that I should add a disclaimer at the end of my columns. He suggested: 'the views expressed are my personal views not necessarily the view of the Global Pan African Movement'. Both legally and politically, he is correct. But I was puzzled that he never felt it necessary to give me this legal advice until Mugabe became an issue!

One of my critics, a veteran of black struggles in the diaspora, even went as far as to suggest that my columns are syndicatedly written by the MI5 and CIA! My response to such lurid accusations is that if the CIA and MI5 could recruit me without my knowledge, then we must give them credit for good judgement!

More seriously, I have not been surprised by the hostile reactions. President Mugabe evokes extremes of passions, with no one being neutral. He is regarded by many Africans and pan-Africanists as the Liberator, the icon of anti–imperialism, the bold and courageous African leader who is able to look at imperialists in the face and say: 'to hell with you'.

In a historical period when Western arrogance and US hegemonic unilateralism are making many people angry, eliciting powerlessness and hopelessness, many are willing to embrace anyone who dares stand up against the West, especially the US. The same sentiments that drew many to admire Saddam Hussein, as an agent of the US for many years, regardless of his atrocities against his own people; or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran today in his vitriolic attacks on the US, or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Many who are unsympathetic to socialism nonetheless admire Castro and Cubans for standing against the US and for having defied it for almost five decades, less than 100km from the coast of Florida! These are seen as leaders who refuse to bend to the wishes of Washington. Even other leaders, especially from the poorer countries of the world, are silently applauding them.

In the case of Mugabe, legitimacy is also derived from a genuine liberation struggle that many regarded as being ambushed by a 'Lancaster House compromise'. Therefore, they see Mugabe as returning to the unfinished agenda, differing from the negotiated settlement that led to independence in 1980. Many are stuck in 1980 and Chimurenga, and fail to judge Mugabe and ZANU PF for almost three decades of monopoly power in the country.

When this is pointed out, a lot of apologetics say that Lancaster House prevented any radical solution. But Lancaster was for only 10 years. Why then did Mugabe not restart the Chimurenga in 1990, instead of being forced to do so in the late 1990s by the veterans? But seeking answers to these questions are like arguing with Jehovah' witnesses!

What also strengthens the pro-Mugabe lobby is the evident hypocrisy of the West in dealing with the
Zimbabwe. Why is Mugabe singled out? Where were they in the mid-1980s when Matabeleland was wasting in ZANU's drive for a one-party state? Would they be making so much noise had Mugabe not attacked and repossessed land from white settlers, whose ancestors - with British imperial force - had grabbed the lands from black people? Is Mugabe being punished as a warning to the ANC in neighbouring South Africa: not to even dare to address the grotesque land inequality in that country?

It is the historic wrong against blacks in Zimbabwe that makes many Africans generally sympathetic to Mugabe, even if they will disagree with some of the methods. The pressures from the West, which is silent about similar or worse excesses of human rights, government authoritarianism and dictatorial leadership by other African leaders, but chose to make Mugabe a scapegoat, work for Mugabe apologists.

That is why the current debate sparked by Britain's Gordon Brown on the forthcoming Africa-EU dialogue scheduled for Portugal later this year can only make Mugabe's position more formidable. Britain is the least qualified country to grandstand anyone on Zimbabwe. Brown can not be threatening the rest of Europe with boycott because of one man and one country. If the dialogue is indeed between Africa and Europe, why should one side be laying down the terms?

Why do European leaders think they are the only ones with a public to respond to? African leaders must not accept this. If they do, they will prove to their people that they are spineless poodles of imperialism, whose only question, when asked to jump by the West, is not why, but how high?

However, rejecting the arrogance and hypocrisies of European leaders should not mean that we should endorse the excesses of President Mugabe's prolonged one-man-rule. Political and ideological suspicions of the opposition do not justify the attacks on them. In any case, our solidarity should be with the people of Zimbabwe, who may be ZANU loyalists, MDC supporters or neither. As citizens, they deserve to demand that their government be held accountable to them.

A disproportionate focus on the West's agenda is making us compromise in our duty to express this
solidarity much more boldly.

Tajudeen Abdul Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in a personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has called on the government of Zimbabwe to guarantee the safety of 15 journalists named on a hit list that appeared to have been leaked from official sources. 'The government of President Robert Mugabe must make it clear to the international community that it is not targeting journalists', said IFJ General Secretary Aidan White. 'It can do that by guaranteeing the safety of all the journalists named and all other journalists in Zimbabwe.'

In the first case of its kind, a Harare magistrate has tried and convicted a man who was found in possession of a printed email message containing information that was said to denigrate President Robert Mugabe and Vice President Joice Mujuru.

A dramatic 41 per cent decline in HIV prevalence has been reported in pregnant women in Zimbabwe, according to the latest survey done in this population. The results were reported in a poster presentation at the 47th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy in Chicago this week.

At least 200 people gathered outside the Zimbabwe embassy in London, in protest against the repression of labour in Zimbabwe. Several groups including the Trade Union Congress, Action for Southern Africa, the National Union of Journalists and the Zimbabwe Vigil participated to show solidarity with workers. The demonstration took place as ZCTU leaders remained in hiding following their pursuit by state security agents.

The latest report from the International Crisis Group examines the role of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) in facilitating a negotiated political solution for the increasingly desperate country, which faces elections in six months. Inflation in Zimbabwe is now impossibly high, and a quarter of the population has now fled.

Acute water shortages are aggravating the health problems of its 1,500,000 residents.

On 23 August 2007, Tendai Murove was charged and convicted, on his own plea of guilt, to contravening section 26(1)(a) as read with section 33 of the colonial Censorship and Entertainment Control Act, after he was found in possession of a six-page letter, allegedly sent to him by a friend. Section 26 prohibits the possession of prohibited articles; while section 33 states the determination of what is indecent, obscene, offensive or harmful to public morals.

This is just to say that I liked your argument. I wish it could be much more publicised and made compulsory reading for all those 'delegates' to the AU or SADC conventions.

It is about time that African heads of government took a serious look at the plight of Africans in African countries being abused by African leaders.

I would appreciate more material on similar matters as I am in the opposition in Zimbabwe.

One of the millions of victims of Robert Mugabe’s chaotic campaign to forcibly clear slum areas across the country has been found dead at her make shift home, in Harare’s high-density suburb of Mbare. Sources in Zimbabwe’s capital said Wednesday that a middle-aged woman had been found dead by her neighbours in a wood-and-plastic shack she has been calling home since the Mugabe regime destroyed her’s in 2005. The cause of the death is not known.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has urged the government of Zimbabwe to put and end to the ongoing crackdown on the media in the wake of increasing attacks on media professionals and the enactment of a draconian communication bill that could lead to monitoring of journalists' communications.

First, a statement of principles; Every African is obliged to stand up for equality, democracy, human rights and social justice - not just for ourselves as individuals or only in our villages, cities, countries and regions - but for all Africans across Africa regardless of gender, ethnicity, race, political or religious beliefs. These must be the bedrock of genuine Pan-Africanism. All of Africa's anti slavery, anti colonial and liberation struggles regardless of their shortcomings [and yes they had shortcomings] were based on these very principles and the concept of an Africa United for social and economic development is nothing but empty rhetoric if it is not based on them.

Consequently for any body genuinely concerned about the future of Africa there can be no politics of convenience. To be sure, the Zimbabwean crisis is not the only crisis in Africa, and this writer believes that all African's must engage any crisis that endangers the social and economic development of Africa on the basis of the above stated principles - be it in Darfur, DRC - or Zimbabwe.

However, the Zimbabwean crisis is arguably the only ongoing crisis in which one side (the incumbent government) and its supporters have mobilised African support and silenced many by asserting more or less that its critics are sympathisers, supporters or agents of foreign interests and former colonial masters. This has wrongly narrowed the framework of the debate on the Zimbabwean crisis into an oversimplified context of African nationalism and anti colonialism versus imperialism and colonialism. If the name of Africa is being invoked in justification of government policy then Africans must have a position on it. As we sometimes say, you can't call on your people, and not expect your people to call on you.

The above in turn underlines an outstanding feature of the crisis - that the current Zimbabwean government is based on the country's liberation movement - which was supported by the majority of Africans, people of African descent and anti colonialists universally against the undemocratic minority white Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith and its supporters. The Zimbabwean government has re-mobilised this historical support by positioning itself as continuing the liberation struggle to “reclaim our land”.

By framing issues in terms of: Are you for land reform or not? Are you for or against white farmers? Are you for or against colonialism? Are you for Africans or the colonialists? President Mugabe has posed in a more sophisticated way; the rhetorical statement so crudely articulated by George Bush that it eventually backfired - “you are either with us or with the enemy”.

Such “you are with us, or with the enemy” rhetoric regardless of the cause which claims to serve, its sophistication or crudeness is dangerous to human rights, to social justice and ultimately to Africa's development because it suggests that anything can be done in the name of defending 'us' against the alleged 'enemy' or even worse, that anything can be done to alleged 'enemies' in the name of defending 'us'. It also suggests that no wrong can be done in the name of fighting the alleged 'enemy' and ultimately that anything but unquestioning loyalty is betrayal.

The continuously evolving logic of such rhetoric is that the definition of enemy is elastic and 'they' [but not the government] can be held responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong. Any acceptance of such a political philosophy by either African citizens or leaders will stagnate intellectual progress in all fields and place Africa in a state of permanent backwardness.

We must make no mistake about it - all of human progress - in science, technology, the social sciences and politics, philosophy and the arts - is based on challenging and improving the status quo or building on previous 'standards'. Put simply, all of human progress is based on rigorous examination of existing conventional wisdoms and on dissent. Every African and in this case every Zimbabwean must therefore have, and exercise the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly without fear of, or actually being beaten senseless, incarcerated or killed. A situation in which people face potential sanctions for not toeing the official line - are assaulted by 'law enforcement' agents merely for singing and dancing [to anti government songs], women are detained for peaceful protests, passports are seized and lawyers are beaten for representing clients is absolutely unacceptable. If it was wrong for minority white regimes to have such policy and practice, it is even more wrong for a black majority government based on a liberation movement to do the same.

Africans cannot accept any policies from people on whose behalf we protested when the same treatment was meted out to them. All Africans must therefore stand firm against any idea that being in 'opposition' means people are not human, or that they are human but don't have human rights. It's a question of principle. All political parties must be aware of the possibility that they will not always be in power - including ZANU-PF. Then they will expect their rights to be defended.

If the state of social and economic development is a key indicator of the state of affairs in a country, a no less important indicator lies in the possibility that all citizens can criticise their government and its policies, offer alternate opinions and ultimately change their government by civil means if that is the wish of the majority. No government - not even the governments of or leaders of liberation movements can arrogate to themselves perpetual wisdom and power.

People can debate indefinitely whether or not the Zimbabwean crisis is as a result of poor government policies, or has been provoked by sanctions and dirty tricks campaigns by 'colonialists' or both. What there is no debate about is that there is a political crisis linked to the apparently indefinite stay in power of President Mugabe. There is absolutely nothing anti Mugabe about anyone wondering if after 20 years as President another Zimbabwean out of its over 12 million citizens - whether from his party or any opposition party - cannot be elected to lead the country.

In Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and other countries leaders of liberation or anti-colonial movement governments have stepped down and are still living - Mandela, Kaunda, Chissano, Nujoma, Mkapa and the list is growing. In Ghana and Zambia where the last African Union and SADC summits respectively held and the Mugabe government made it a point to mobilise its supporters there have been successful changes of the party of government in 2000 and 1991 respectively without the roof caving in on those countries. 20 years is enough for any President to make contributions to the progress of his or her country. Nobody needs foreign governments to tell us that. On the whole African democracy is not perfect but on the balance it is heading in the right direction. Zimbabwe cannot be an exception to this progressive trend.

The African Union under the stewardship of Chairperson Konaré (himself a former leader of Mali that also led by example) has come a long way from the OAU and it must underline this point. It is a sign of progress that the AU leadership and many member governments have so far agreed with African rights campaigners that leaders of countries with unresolved rights and governance issues cannot Chair the AU unlike the days when even the worst of despots like Idi Amin could Chair the former OAU with impunity. The AU and SADC must continue in the spirit of the AU constitutive Acts, SADC Declaration and other key principles and discourage the idea that African leaders must stay in power indefinitely so as to avoid defeat by colonialists. The colonialists have essentially been defeated. That is why the country is called Zimbabwe not Rhodesia, and President Mugabe not Ian Smith has been President for 20 years.

Yes some foreign interests will continue to meddle in Africa, whether directly or through proxies - this happens in almost all parts of the world. But the future of Africa is now in the hands of Africans. Our governments can therefore not adopt the same repressive policies of the colonialists in the name of continuing the fight against them. It is important to emphasise that democracy is imperfect universally and also that the pendulum of power often swings from one end to the other between ideologies, parties, and factions within parties. Parties also evolve and change and what they stand for today may not be what they stood for yesterday or will stand for tomorrow. For example, the world watched in disbelief during the 2000 Bush versus Gore election fiasco in the United States which were it to have happened in Africa under the same circumstances would have been described as “typically African”.

In the spirit of parliamentary democracy with no term limits, former Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher whom presided over the last days of the Rhodesian regime and whom regarded the ANC in South Africa as a 'terrorists' was tempted to go on indefinitely after 11 years as UK Prime Minister until hounded out in tears by anti poll tax mass protests and her own party. Most recently former Labour leader Tony Blair under pressure from his own party and the public barely managed to negotiate a dignified exit after 10 years in office.

In Latin America where some governments would consider themselves as liberation type governments, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas for instance lost elections in 1990 to openly foreign backed Contra's after coming to power in 1979 on the back of a popular rebellion that overthrew the Somoza dynasty. By the 2006 the Sandinistas had been voted back into power. How may people looking at US politics today would realise that founders of the Republican party in 1854 included anti-slavery activists and that the Democrats now heavily supported by African Americans once benefited handsomely from slave owners. The point here is that majority of African countries have been independent for only between 13 and 50 years and Africans must take a longer-term view of political history.

If despite obviously democratic imperfections many African and non African countries have managed to change leaders and parties of governments without the world coming to an end, there is no reason why it is impossible for Zimbabwe to have a future without President Mugabe in power, or for President Mugabe to live without being in power. Even Ian Smith leader of the Rhodesian government that committed countless atrocities against Africans and swore that Black majority rule would never happen has lived in post colonial Zimbabwe - and is now a grand old man of 88.

There is nothing personal about upholding democracy; the interests of the citizens of a country must always come before that of the leadership of any government. The above underlines the fact that people can also debate without end about whether the Zimbabwean economy is collapsing, has already collapsed, or will never collapse. The fact is that an estimated three million [undoubtedly very Black] Zimbabweans have fled the country with many living as refugees in neighbouring countries. They must be running from something. We now face the debacle of armed racist farmers on the South African Zimbabwe border fulfilling their racist fantasy by being presented with opportunities to hunt down and round up Zimbabweans fleeing across the border in the name of defending South Africa from invading “illegal foreign criminals”. Even if the present Zimbabwean government claims it bears absolutely no responsibility and that drought, withdrawal of credit lines, sanctions or even the cycle of boom and bust that has caused recessions even in advanced industrial economies is responsible for the economic misery, the fact is that it is almost impossible to offer alternatives without being “bashed”.

No one but the government can be blamed for the rash of legislation that has no other role than to contain, intimidate or suppress criticism and peaceful opposition. The laws and policies speak for themselves “Public Order and Security Act”, “Interception of Communications Act” and so forth. How many people demanding uncritical loyalty for the Zimbabwean government would happily live under laws which its just a question of a matter of time before anyone becomes an arbitrarily victim. It makes no difference if the foot in the boot kicking you and your rights into a dungeon is Black or White. A kick is a kick.

'Sanctions' cannot be blamed for everything. By way of comparison Cuba a country of similar population and even greater anti-imperialist zeal has faced well-documented and comprehensive blockades, sanctions and invasions [not to mention numerous assassination attempts against its leadership] by “foreign interests” over a greater 40-year period and on a scale far surpassing anything Zimbabwe will ever experience. Despite obvious democratic deficits, the Cuban government has won grudging admiration of even its critics because healthy life expectancy in Cuba - at 67 and 70 years respectively for men and women respectively - has risen and been sustained at a level equivalent to and in some cases higher than in the most advanced industrial countries. In Zimbabwe current healthy life expectancy has sunk to 34 years and 33 years respectively for men and women, also making Zimbabwe one of the countries in the world where men are expected to live longer than women.

This is not an endorsement of any section of, or all of the opposition, or even of hypocritical foreign policy from some countries - but rather of the right of all citizens including the political opposition to exist without fear of repression. Just as we know that being a liberation fighter does not guarantee that anyone will be the best possible leader in government, we all know that being an 'opposition' movement or leader is not a guarantee that anybody will do better than those they seek to replace. Regardless, one of the indisputable conditions for the development of Africa is that the principles and culture of democracy must be institutionalised. No one should insult the memory of countless Africans murdered by colonial settlers to facilitate stealing of their land by suggesting repressive laws are necessary to implement or defend land reform. Without doubt land reform is a necessary part of social justice for Africans, but it must be judicious, equitable and transparent land reform based on respect for human rights and the rule of law - not land reform used as a political cudgel to 'bash' all critical voices.

I have heard some people argue that the 'enemies' of Africa now crying about human rights did not burden their conscience with such luxuries when benefiting from 400 years of industrial scale slavery, colonialism and brutal exploitation of Africa and its peoples. In other words, that 'white farmers' deserve some of their own medicine. Not only does such thinking reduce African's to the moral bankruptcy of colonialists, it also fails to understand that it risks granting unlimited and indefinite power to Africa's actual and imaginary liberators such that we may all end up be shackled by them. Africa's liberation movements drew their moral strength from the fact that on the balance, they fought for social justice, human rights, equality and democracy - for all - not for card-carrying members of ruling parties.

The philosophical algebra of this equation is that there should be no expectations that these principles can be discarded as inconvenient while still counting on the unwavering support of all Africans. Africans must therefore unite for social justice and human rights across Africa - including in Zimbabwe. Some people also think that because of either real or imagined 'western' hypocrisy we must always give unconditional loyalty to the Mugabe or any government that claims to be defending Africa against 'imperialism'.

The hypocrisy may be real but our primary concern must be the welfare of Africans, not whether President Bush as part of his politics of convenience - supports the Musharraf military regime in Pakistan which was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1999 for overthrowing an elected government (while simultaneously passing the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Act), or even whether some of the western media engage in 'colonial mentality' reporting which fulfils negative stereotypes of Africa. Our health care system, education, food and overall social justice and development must come first. It is impossible to build on development achievements if everyone must agree with official policy. Regardless of party affiliation nobody's stomach is neutral on the question of hunger. No disease asks for your party card.

While all Africans with any dignity must remain firmly anti-colonial and anti-racist, we must also view with scepticism any blanket anti-western and anti-white rhetoric. Not withstanding that some foreign governments described the ANC and other liberation movements as “communists” and “terrorists” or both, while simultaneously supporting bandit governments such as the Mobutu regime, Africa's anti colonial and liberation movements were supported by millions across the world including from the West. Even some governments such as the Swedish were proud supporters of liberation movements and post independence governments long before it became fashionable to do so.

President Mugabe is a former teacher and one of Africa's most educated and experienced leaders. After over 2 decades in power, he does not really need anyone to tell him that it is not only possible to be in office without being in power; it is also possible to be in power without moral authority. Once any leader anywhere gets to that point it is irrelevant what you claim to stand for. What will become relevant is that you did not stand down when you should have done so - of your own free will - and in the best interests of your people.

*Sankore is a Pan-Africanist and Human Rights Campaigner.

*Comments and responses to , or comment online at

The Africancolours Artists’ Association (AAA), sponsored by the Culture Fund of Zimbabwe Trust (CFoZT) will be conducting visual arts seminars around the country starting in Harare on 17th of September 2007 at the National Art Gallery of Zimbabwe. The main objective of the seminars is to encourage the country’s visual artists to use the various forms of Information Technology around to publicize their work to a global audience and help contribute to the growth of the country’s culture sector.

Since its launch last year in December SW Radio Africa has become an alternative source of news and information using the short message sending (SMS) system directly to mobile phones. With many Zimbabweans struggling to get basic commodities from the shops, the short message sending system allows them to get news at any given time without having to peruse a newspaper or go to the internet.

Zimbabwe's police formally accused the country's main opposition leader on Thursday of "disorderly conduct" in connection with his recent tour of stores hurt by the government's controversial price freeze, his lawyer said. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the biggest faction of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), was quizzed by police for nearly an hour in the capital, Harare, and then released from custody, one day after being instructed to appear.

Zimbabwe's failing economy and collapsing services have provided an environment ripe for graft, with the impoverished country's woes facilitating an ever-worsening slide towards corruption. Despite setting up a local graft-busting body in 2004, Zimbabwe appears to be losing the battle against corruption, with President Robert Mugabe's economic policies seen to promote corrupt behaviour, according to a leading watchdog.

The high cost antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and inadequate control mechanisms in Zimbabwe are driving a flourishing trade in fake ARVs by unlicensed dealers, activists have warned. The Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) recently issued a statement warning the public that the dealers were importing and selling counterfeit ARVs to unsuspecting HIV-positive people who needed the life-prolonging medication.

Last week South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula raised the hopes of millions of Zimbabweans living in that country after suggesting her government might consider granting them temporary residence permits. In what many said was a tacit admission Zimbabwe’s crisis has gone out of hand, Mapisa-Nqakula told reporters the government needed to adopt a new approach to deal with Zimbabwean citizens flocking into South Africa. She said deportations were a waste of money as people were going back within days of being kicked out of the country.