APPENDIX 15
Memorandum from the International Bar
Association
1. In its role as a dual membership organisation,
comprising 16,000 individual lawyers and 180 Bar Associations
and Law Societies, the International Bar Association (IBA) influences
the development of international law reform and helps shape the
future of the legal profession. Its Member Organisations cover
all continents and include the American Bar Association, the German
Federal Bar, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, the Law
Society of Zimbabwe and the Mexican Bar Association.
The IBA's Human Rights Institute works across
the Association, helping to promote, protect and enforce human
rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence
of judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.
2. Following reports of threats to the independence
of the judiciary in Zimbabwe and an increase in attacks on the
legal profession, in March 2001 the IBA organised a high-level
delegation to investigate claims that the rule of law was in danger.
3. The delegation held meetings with representatives
from all spheres of the legal profession. The conclusion of its
report was that the legal profession in Zimbabwe was in "grave
peril." The IBA recommended measures to avoid the complete
collapse of the legal profession and the urgent policy changes
which needed to be made to stop the already existent climate
of fear and lawlessness, from taking over the country. (See Annex
1.)
ATTACKS ON
JUSTICE AND
UNDERMINING THE
RULE OF
LAW
4. Since its mission in March 2001, the
IBA has kept a vigilant watch over developments in the situation
of the legal profession in that country. The IBA has developed
an ongoing project for the legal profession in Zimbabwe, working
with the Law Society of Zimbabwe to develop a continuing legal
education programme. The programme also has a capacity building
aspect to it, to enable the Law Society to support its members
to the highest professional standard and encourage high ethical
standards. The Law Society of Zimbabwe has been a strong and independent
body throughout this difficult era in Zimbabwe and is seen as
a non-partisan professional body, which has fought to retain the
rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
The IBA itself is an independent and non-political
professional body. This submission essentially has a dual focus
to:
(a) Detail the attacks on the judiciary and
legal profession in Zimbabwe and the external pressures encountered
by judges and legal practitioners in carrying out their professional
duties; and highlight the impact that a year of constant pressure,
attacks and undermining by the Executive has had on the profession
as a whole.
(b) Analyse the legislative amendments which
were implemented by the Executive preceding the recent Presidential
Elections on 9, 10 and 11 March, and highlight the significant
impact that those changes had on the outcome of the elections,
and continue to have on the legal profession and civil society.[21]
5. During its extensive meetings with members
of the legal profession in March 2001, the delegation noted the
concerns of the lawyers and judges, many of whom expressed their
concern at the possibility that the Government may pressurise
independent and highly respected judges to resign and replace
them with judges more favourable to the ruling party line—effectively
"packing" the bench. The delegation, which consisted
of the Former Chief Justice of India, Justice Ahmadi; Eastern
Caribbean Supreme Court Judge Justice Byron; the then Co-Chair
of the IBA's Human Rights Institute, Lord Goldsmith QC; Former
Counsel to Nelson Mandela, George Bizos SC; Judge Andre Davis
US; and Ashwin Trikamjee, IBA Human Rights Institute Council Member,
were assured during meetings with officials that there were no
plans to pressurise judges to leave, and that no "packing"
of the bench would take place. President Mugabe himself was informed
by the delegation during its meeting with him that they had heard
from members of the legal profession that the Government had it
in mind to move to increase the numbers of judges in the Supreme
Court in the hope that the actions taken by the Government would
be validated by judges compliant to the Government line. President
Mugabe "assured us that there was no such intention. We were
very pleased to receive that assurance".[22]
6. The IBA has observed that over the last
year the Government of Zimbabwe has placed consistent, unfair
and deliberate pressure on judges, in particular those in its
highest courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court. This has
resulted in many highly respected and independent judges seeking
early retirement or leaving the country. This, coupled with the
increase in the number of judges being appointed to the Supreme
Court, has led many members of the international legal community
to believe that there are clear signs that the Government has
now totally reneged on its assurances to the IBA in 2001 and may
be perceived as realising the "packing" of the bench
with judges who make more palatable decisions.
7. The IBA has issued many statements when
it has considered that the independence of the judiciary has been
under threat. One of the most recent statements (see Annex 2)
issued by the IBA, concerned the resignation of a highly respected
Supreme Court Judge, Justice Ebrahim. The judge announced his
resignation on 2 March 2002 shortly after presiding over a Supreme
Court ruling that the General Laws Amendments Act had been enacted
illegally. Following this decision on 27 February 2002, Justice
Ebrahim brought his 12-year career as a Supreme Court Judge to
an end, without explanation. Minister for Justice, Patrick Chinimasa,
in a report in the Herald newspaper, confirmed that Justice
Ebrahim would be leaving in May. No reason was given for his resignation.
Justice Ebrahim had ruled to reject legislation proposed by the
Government that required greater restriction of election monitors
and which increased the powers of State election officers. President
Mugabe signed a decree on Tuesday, 5 March, using presidential
powers that overruled the judgement laid down by the Supreme Court.
In so doing the President exploited Article 158 of the Electoral
Act (see Annex 3), to allow himself sweeping powers to circumvent
Parliament and the courts.
8. The statement was released on 8 March
2002, almost exactly a year to the day since the IBA delegation
first arrived in Zimbabwe for its initial investigation into attacks
on the profession and threats to the rule of law. In just one
year the judiciary has seen the resignation of its Chief Justice
Gubbay, Judge McNally (Supreme Court), Judge Ebrahim (Supreme
Court), Judge Devittie (High Court), Judge Bartlett (High Court)
and Judge Chatikobo (High Court). All the aforementioned judges
were of high standing greatly respected, not just in Zimbabwe,
but also throughout the region and had a worldwide reputation
for independence.
9. The resignation and departure of many
reputable and long-standing judges has left the legal profession
feeling demoralised. Many of those advocates fighting cases for
clients in the courts know that on politically sensitive cases,
such as those involving land or electoral disputes, certain judges
may be appointed to preside over the case, making a fair outcome
for their client unlikely from the outset. The decisions made
by the courts set, of course, new legal precedents, and could
leave a difficult legacy for the legal profession and have far-reaching
repercussions for civil society. This has already started to manifest
itself. It is perceived by some that the Judge President allocates
the more politically sensitive cases to those judges that he believes
will be sympathetic to the Government's position. The Judge President
is also alleged to have allocated himself to cases of sensitive
nature. Chief Justice Chidyausiku is also reported to have selected
those of his judges who are of a more compliant nature to preside
over both Constitutional and sensitive political cases. Dissenting
judgements are now increasingly few and far between.
10. The courts in Zimbabwe have been invaded
by alleged war veterans on a number of occasions. Following the
invasions of the courts by war veterans, the Government has been
reluctant to criticise the actions of the war veterans, which
has again enhanced the feeling amongst lawyers, prosecutors and
judges that they were in a vulnerable position. The government
has continued to fail to act to protect or stop threats made by
war veterans against judges and the legal profession over the
last year. The situation has in fact worsened, with many Ministers
themselves making public defamatory statements to the press criticising
particular judges, and thereby inciting reprisals. Judges have
had no choice but to resign.
11. The Government has, on a number of occasions,
publicly questioned the ability of white judges to be independent.
The Executive has suggested that there was a black/white divide,
but the pressure is not exclusively placed on white members of
the judiciary, but rather has been consistently placed on those
judges, both white and black, as a result of their independent
decisions. The resignations have come from both white and black
members of the judiciary, all of whom have a reputation for fearlessly
laying down the law without discrimination or bias.
12. The Zimbabwean Government has repeatedly
shown disregard for the independence of the judiciary and rule
of law and has completely failed to comply with the assurances
it made to the delegation in 2001 regarding the protection of
judges and compliance with court rulings. The Zimbabwean Government
has failed to implement any of the recommendations made by the
delegation and has not acted, as it is required to do under section
11 of its Constitution, to protect members of the legal profession
and judiciary. (See Annex 3.)
13. The threats have not only been made
to judges, but anyone who criticises any action or policy of the
Executive. The Law Society of Zimbabwe's President, Sternford
Moyo, who is internationally renowned for his strong defence of
the judiciary and legal profession, has been the victim of a vicious
and public attack in the State-owned newspaper, the Herald,
by Minister Jonathon Moyo. This attack follows Sternford Moyo's
final year report which was delivered to the annual meeting of
the Law Society Council in which he stated:
"Recently, the number of Supreme Court
Judges was increased from five to eight. During its visit to Zimbabwe,
the IBA obtained assurance that the Supreme Court was not going
to be packed. A perception of a desire to pack the Supreme Court
has developed among some of our members as a consequence of the
increase in the number of Supreme Court Judges."
Minister Jonathon Moyo as a result of this report,
stated in the Herald that:
"Media reports attributed to the ever-partisan
president of the Law Society of Zimbabwe [LSZ], Sternford Moyo,
allegedly calling for constitutional reforms to "prevent
the packing of the Supreme Court with pro-Government judges"
are, if true, clear proof that the LSZ, under Sternford Moyo,
has become an anti-Government, anti-black and pro-British sponsored
opposition to African nationalism in Zimbabwe. The import of the
LSZ position is that the bench should be `packed with anti-Government
judges' who are presumably white and steeped in Rhodesian jurisprudence
like the departed Anthony Gubbay and his fellow travelling racist
judges who laboured in vain to hijack the court for partisan interests
on behalf of the British and unrepentant white commercial farmers
in the MDC".[23]
14. The above allegations against Sternford
Moyo made by Minister Moyo are defamatory and contemptuous in
nature and should be immediately retracted by the Minister. The
IBA is shocked at the personal attack made against Sternford Moyo,
who is a lawyer of high standing and greatly respected by his
clients and members of the profession. Reports have been received
that Sternford Moyo's offices suffered a petrol bomb attack two
months earlier. The IBA remains extremely concerned for Mr Moyo.
No measures have yet been taken to ensure the safety of Sternford
Moyo, despite a written request by Mr Moyo to the appropriate
authorities for protection.
15 The IBA is extremely concerned to learn
of the public criticism of the Law Society of Zimbabwe's President,
Sternford Moyo, by Government Minister Jonathon Moyo. The IBA
condems the allegations as defamatory and requests that an immediate
withdrawal of the comments by Jonathon Moyo is carried out[24].
ANALYSIS OF
LEGISLATION
16. International law protects the right
of every citizen to vote and requires governments to facilitate
the exercise of this right both legally and practically. The IBA
is concerned that the Zimbabwean Government has not only failed
to facilitate the exercise of the right to vote but has in recent
months promulgated legislation that inhibits that right. Endorsing
the UN's assertion that "freedom of expression, assembly
and association are essential conditions of the right to vote
and must be fully protected",[25]
the IBA contends that the recent legislative changes infringe
each of these fundamental rights, which are enshrined in the Constitution
of Zimbabwe[26]
as well as various international treaties to which Zimbabwe is
a signatory.
17. In particular, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"),[27]
to which Zimbabwe acceded on 13 May 1991, protects the right to
vote (Article 25), freedom of expression (Article 19) and freedom
of peaceful assembly (Article 21), allowing governments to pass
laws restricting such rights only in limited circumstances as
strictly necessary, such as for the protection of national security
or public order. General Comment 25 describes the close relationship
between the freedoms of expression and association and the right
to vote, with the result that undue restrictions on fundamental
freedoms will seriously jeopardise the democratic process.
18. In addition, the Southern African Development
Community ("SADC") has stated that "one of the
fundamental principles of multi-party democracy and political
development process is that there should be freedom of association
and expression".[28]
In order to fulfil this, the SADC has recommended that the sanctity
of the freedom of association and expression should be protected
and strictly adhered to.[29]
19. In the run-up to the March 2002 presidential
elections, the Zimbabwean Government introduced a number of new
laws and legislative amendments, notably:
(a) Public Order and Security Act 2002 ("POSA").
(b) Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act 2001 (Access to Information).
(c) Electoral (Amendment) Regulations 2002
(Nos 12 and 13) ("Electoral Regulations").
20. As detailed further below, these new
laws significantly impact the exercise of fundamental human rights
and freedoms in Zimbabwe, attacking the heart of freedoms of expression
and assembly and placing obstacles in the way of the conduct of
fair elections.
FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION
21. Article 20 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe
echoes the international norms enshrined in the ICCPR when it
provides that ". . . no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment
of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without
interference." Although this right may be restricted where
necessary "in the interests of defence, public safety, public
order, the economic interests of the state, public morality or
public health" or "for the purpose of maintaining the
authority and independence of the courts or tribunals or Parliament,"
such restrictions must be of a type "reasonably justifiable
in a democratic society".
22. The freedom to "receive and impart
ideas and information" encompasses freedom of the press.
The international community has long recognised the need for an
independent and pluralistic African press. The Commonwealth of
Nations, of which Zimbabwe is a member, has also issued statements
and declarations, such as the Harare Declaration[30]
and the Statement on Freedom of Expression[31]
("CSFE"), exhorting member countries to encourage democracy
through the presentation of diverse points of view in the mass
media. In particular, the CSFE states that journalism should remain
an unregulated profession and notes that journalists operating
in good faith "should not become the object of emergency
laws or other public security provisions". The laws enacted
by the Zimbabwean Government fall short of these principles on
a number of counts.
23. The POSA makes it an offence to cause
disaffection among the police force or defence forces (section
12), to publish or communicate false statements prejudicial to
the state (section 15), or to undermine the authority of or insult
the President (section 16). Each of those crimes is punishable
by substantial fines (ranging from Z$20,000 to Z$100,000) or imprisonment
for periods of between one and five years.
24. The Government could claim that the
purpose of the restrictions of freedom of expression in each of
these provisions is in the interests of public safety and order,
as permitted by the Constitution. In each case, however, the restrictions
go far beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve these ends.
25. The prohibition against causing disaffection
among the police or defence forces is drafted so broadly that
it is likely to stifle any alternative political views being expressed
to members of the police or defence forces. Any actual or threatened
instances of breaches of discipline or disloyalty in the police
or defence forces may conceivably be blamed on anyone who expresses
such views.
26. The standard of proof required for the
other offences also is very low. Falsity of statements prejudicial
to the state may be established by mere risk of the possibility
that the statement is false. Potential prejudice may be established
by the mere risk that the statement would have the effect of promoting
or inciting public disorder or violence or endangering public
safety. Similarly, making any statement about the President where
there is a "risk or possibility" of causing feelings
of hostility, hatred, contempt or ridicule of the President attracts
liability under the Act, stifling criticism or negative comment.
27. The Privacy Act contains additional
restrictions of freedom of expression, which are particularly
aimed at the press. The Act prescribes the offences of "abuse
of journalistic privilege" and "abuse of freedom of
expression", each punishable by fines of up to Z$100,000
or prison terms of up to two years.
28. "Abuse of journalistic privilege"
is deemed to have taken place if a journalist "spreads rumours,
falsehoods or causes alarm and despondency under the guise of
authentic reports," potentially imposing liability for a
negative reaction to what may be true and accurate reporting.
The curiously-titled "abuse of freedom of expression"
offence prevents the use of the mass media for the purposes of
"denigrating, bringing into hatred or contempt or ridicule
or to excite disaffection against the President, the law enforcement
agents or the administration of justice in Zimbabwe".
29. Such subjective curtailment of the freedom
of the media to report and comment on the incumbent regime cannot
reasonably be justified on the grounds of public safety and order.
Rather, the Privacy Act offences seem designed to stifle free
comment by the press.
30. The imposition of criminal penalties
and potential prison terms for offences under both the POSA and
the Privacy Act are unnecessarily harsh and disproportionate to
the crimes. The threat of incarceration for publicly criticising
the Government and President appears designed to eliminate free
expression on these subjects. According to recent reports, the
Government has continued to enforce these laws since the election,
with three journalists working in Zimbabwe arrested and detained
under the laws in recent weeks.
31. Although restrictions on the right to
free expression for limited purposes are recognised by the Constitution
of Zimbabwe and international norms, in the case of these laws
the restrictions go far beyond what is necessary to preserve countervailing
individual and social rights. The provisions have the potential
to create an atmosphere in which opposing political views are
suppressed and legitimate press commentary is discouraged.
FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY
32. In similar terms to the ICCPR, Section
21 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe enshrines the freedoms of assembly
and association, particularly in relation to political activity.
The Constitution does contemplate that laws may be enacted infringing
those freedoms in the interests of public safety and public order
unless such laws are shown not to be "reasonably justifiable
in a democratic society".
33. In our view, the regulation of public
gatherings by the POSA, introduced on 23 January 2002 in the run-up
to the Zimbabwe Presidential elections, goes beyond what is reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society for the reasons given below.
34. Four clear days' written notice is required
before holding any public gathering. This does not allow sufficient
flexibility for political parties or associations to respond to
political developments and hold meetings spontaneously or on short
notice. The concept of "public gathering" is not defined
and therefore potentially the organiser of any meeting of a group
of two or more persons should apply to the regulating authority
in order to have the gathering approved. Section 19(2) of the
POSA specifically extends the regime to private meetings, which
clearly goes beyond what is necessary in order to regulate in
the interests of public safety and order.
35. The POSA gives the regulating authority
the power to prohibit public gatherings in order to avoid any
public disorder or breach of the peace. These concepts are not
defined and effectively give a wide discretion to the Government
to control public gatherings purely on the basis of a perceived
threat of public disorder or breach of the peace. All appeals
from decisions of the regulating authority are to be made to the
Minister. There is no requirement that such appeals have to be
determined within a specified period and, therefore, there is
a real possibility that delays could occur in seeking to overturn
an order prohibiting a political gathering.
36. The regulating authority may also prevent
any public demonstrations within any police district for a period
of up to one month purely on the basis that it considers that
orders prohibiting specific public gatherings would be insufficient
to prevent public disorder in that area. This power clearly goes
beyond what is necessary in the interests of public safety and
order to prevent effectively any public disorder. Any public demonstration
relating to any subject whatsoever could be prohibited within
the relevant district for a prolonged period of time. It is difficult
to ascertain a basis on which such a blanket prohibition could
be justifiable.
37. Breach of the POSA provisions can give
rise to fines or imprisonment of up to one year. In our view,
a prison sentence is a disproportionate consequence for a failure
to comply with a regulatory regime. In any event, if any actual
harm is caused at a public gathering, a separate criminal offence
would have been committed and an appropriate punishment would
apply.
38. Section 29 of the POSA specifically
contemplates that it may be lawful for a person to be killed as
a result of the use of reasonably justifiable force for the purpose
of apprehending persons present at a banned public gathering.
This provision implies a policy on the part of the Government
that any non-compliance with the public gathering provisions may
have dire consequences for those involved.
39. In the opinion of the IBA, the provisions
of the POSA referred to above are, on any reasonable interpretation,
excessive and disproportionate for their stated purpose of maintaining
public order and safety and infringe the Constitution of Zimbabwe
as well as generally accepted international standards of civil
liberty. As recognised by the SADC in the Windhoek declaration,
there is a close connection between the freedom of association
and the proper conduct of the democratic process. The regulation
of public gatherings and, in particular, the requirement to give
notice of meetings and the ability for the Government to prohibit
meetings, as well as the consequences of non-compliance in terms
of jail terms and the potential use of force implies an intention
to impede freedom of assembly in Zimbabwe in relation to public
gatherings and demonstrations not approved by the Government.
40. Although the regulating authorities
are required to have reasonable grounds for their decisions, in
light of the fact that all relevant appeals are made to the Minister,
the administrative process could easily be abused to prevent public
gatherings and demonstrations even if they could have no adverse
effect on public order and safety. The cumulative effect of the
provisions and of the Government's powers in relation to those
provisions could well lead to a reduction in freedom of assembly
in Zimbabwe with a consequent adverse impact on the ability to
hold political gatherings and meetings. Unjustifiable regulation
of the essential political process of assembly can only have an
adverse effect on the integrity of the democratic process in Zimbabwe.
FREE AND
FAIR ELECTIONS
41. Article 25 of the ICCPR and the Constitution
of Zimbabwe provide for every citizen's right to participate in
his or her government. This means that governments have a duty
to facilitate an electoral process that is free, fair and open
and in which every citizen has an opportunity to participate by
voting. As described in the UN's General Comments on Article 25,
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are basic conditions
necessary for the conduct of free and fair elections. By promulgating
the POSA and the Access to Information and Privacy Act, which
unduly restrict those freedoms, the Zimbabwean Government compromised
the quality of the electoral process.
42. In the Electoral Regulations, the Zimbabwean
Government set further obstacles to the conduct of free and fair
elections. A particularly concerning aspect of the Electoral Regulations
is that, when the Government originally passed them as amendments
to the Electoral Act, Zimbabwe's Supreme Court ruled that several
of the amendments were unconstitutional. Notwithstanding that
ruling, the Zimbabwean Government resurrected those amendments
in the form of regulations shortly before the election took place.
43. Several provisions of the Electoral
Regulations restrict the number of journalists, polling agents,
monitors and observers who may be present at any polling station.
For example, monitors must be appointed and accredited by the
Electoral Commission from among members of the Public Service
and may face additional accreditation requirements, including
possibly being required by the Electoral Commission to attend
an approved course on electoral law and procedure. All others
are denied access to the polls unless they have been accredited
as observers, for which an individual must, among other requirements,
pay an accreditation fee and furnish the Observers' Accreditation
Committee with an invitation. The regulations also specifically
allow electoral officials to proceed with tasks related to opening
and closing the ballot boxes and counting votes in the absence
of any election agents, polling agents, monitors and observers.
44. These provisions pose several problems.
First, the Electoral Commission and the Observers' Accreditation
Committee are composed entirely of individuals appointed by the
incumbent government, not by parliament. This gives at least the
appearance, if not also the effect, of impropriety in that the
incumbent government granted itself control of the purportedly
independent observer process. Second, the level of accreditation
and other requirements, particularly as they were prescribed with
so little time left before the election, created obstacles that
prevented anyone outside the Zimbabwean Government from adequately
assessing the conduct of the elections. Third, the fact that the
poll officials are specifically granted the power to conduct the
election without supervision seems to confirm the suggestion that
the Zimbabwean Government was unwilling to allow the transparency
necessary for free and fair elections. In addition, the provision
of possible criminal liability for violations of the related code
of conduct seems unwarranted and excessive.
45. Section 158 of the Electoral Act gives
the President sweeping powers to circumvent Parliament and the
Courts. This was the section used by the Government in the build-up
to the Elections to regulate the conduct of the elections. The
abuse of this power is evident in the fact that one of the candidates,
who, for obvious reasons, has more than a general interest in
the election results, makes up rules and regulations that favour
his side rather than creating a level playing field for a game
whose rules should be well known by all well beforehand. The section
was used to promulgate regulations at 1600 hrs on 8 March 2002,
when the election was due to start at 0700 hrs the next day. It
was used to nullify the judgement laid down by the Supreme Court
which had annulled as unconstitutional the General Laws Amendment
Act. The section itself is unconstitutional and should be removed.
46. Some of these regulations may seem individually
reasonable, however, a) their extensive nature, b) the fact that
they were enacted so close to the date of the election and c)
the fact that they granted too much power to appointees of the
incumbent government suggests an attempt to unduly influence the
conduct of the election in favour of the incumbent government.
CONCLUSION
47. The right of every citizen to vote for
the leaders of his or her country is one of the fundamental aspects
of a democratic and free society. Any effort by a government to
unjustifiably restrict the exercise of that right compromises
the legitimacy of that government, as well as any pretence to
membership in a global community of democracies. Freedom of expression,
freedom of association and a fully functioning system of independent
journalists and monitors are each essential to the conduct of
a free and fair election. It is the task of every government to
provide its citizens with legislation fully protecting these freedoms
and fully supporting the work of journalists, monitors and other
essential actors. A vote cast in an atmosphere in which these
freedoms and systems are restricted is not a full vote. The IBA
is concerned that the legislation described above evidences an
effort by the incumbent Zimbabwean Government to unduly influence
the outcome of the elections in a manner that infringed upon the
basic human rights of the Zimbabwean people.
48. The IBA feels that the independence
of the judiciary has been violated and extensive damage has been
done to the legal profession. The IBA contends that as a result
of the persistent pressure exerted on the judiciary by the Zimbabwean
Government the rule of law is on the brink of collapse, and the
legal profession is in grave danger of further reprisals as the
Zimbabwean Government pursues its own objectives.
THE IBA RECOMMENDS
THAT
1. An immediate and urgent review of the
Constitution is carried out and all legislation recently brought
in by the Government reviewed within the context of the Constitution
and relevant international standards.
2. The Government withdraws any defamatory
statements made against members of the legal profession, including
the President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
3. An independent Electoral Commission is
set up to oversee elections and the opinion of such a body accepted
and upheld as is the norm in any democratic society.
4. Threats made against any judges or other
members of the legal profession are investigated immediately and
measures taken to ensure their safety.
5. The alleged "packing" of the
benches must be investigated and, if found to be true, must stop
and measures must be taken to ensure a fair, independent judiciary
is in place.
International Bar Association
May 2002
21 The IBA invited a group of international legal
experts from the law firm, Sherman and Stirling to carry out an
analysis of the legislation which has been pushed through Parliament
by the Zimbabwean Government in recent months. The IBA would like
to express its gratitude to the experts for their contribution
to the project. Back
22
Report of Zimbabwe Mission 2001, International Bar Association,
23 April 2001. Back
23
Article titled "Bid to Dilute Sovereignty Slammed",
Herald newspaper. 18 April 2002. Back
24
Since submitting this report to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
the IBA was shocked and outraged to learn of the arrest and detention
of Sternford Moyo and Wilbert Mapombere. For further information
and the IBA's statement on the situation please visit www.ibanet.org. Back
25
"The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights
and the right to access to public service (Art. 25)." CCPR
General Comment 25 adopted by the Committee at its 1510th meeting
(57th session) on 12 July 1996. ("General Comment 2.5"). Back
26
Adopted 18 April 1980, as amended. Back
27
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted
and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General
Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966, entry into
force 23 March 1976 in accordance with Article 49 (Zimbabwe acceded
13 May 1991). Back
28
"SADC Parliamentary Forum-Norms and Standards for Elections
in the SADC Region", Adopted by the ASDC Parliamentary Forum
Plenary Assembly on 25 March 2001, Windhoek, Namibia. ("Windhoek
Declaration"). Back
29
Windhoek Declaration, Part 2, Paragraph 3. Back
30
Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991. Back
31
Commonwealth Statement on Freedom of Expression, 1998. Back
| 
