<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VIII. Government Restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Expression, Association, and Assembly

Election protagonists’ ability to campaign is premised on their right to hold meetings and rallies freely without any obstacles. Further, the SADC Principles and Guidelines call on states to safeguard freedom of movement, assembly, association, expression, and campaigning during electoral processes.⁶⁶ However, in the past eight years and in the run up to the 2008 elections this has not been the case in Zimbabwe, where police have selectively applied and interpreted laws such as the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) to prevent the opposition from campaigning.⁶⁷ 

Human Rights Watch has long argued that these laws significantly limit the rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly, and as a result significantly impact on the ability of Zimbabweans to freely exercise their will during elections, and on the ability of opposition parties to campaign.⁶⁸  As part of the SADC mediation talks, the government agreed to review the laws, and (as noted above in Chapter V) parliament passed a number of amendments to POSA and AIPPA (the amendments to the latter are discussed in Chapter IX, below). However, the amendments to these laws—which came into force on January 11, 2008—do not go far enough, and there is little evidence that they have been implemented on the ground.

The Public Order and Security Amendment Act (No. 18. 2007) amends provisions of Part IV of the Public Order and Security Act 2002 relating to public meetings, processions, and demonstrations: notifications for public rallies or demonstrations can now be given to the nearest police station (previously notification was given to the regulating authority in which the gathering was to be held). Appeals against prohibition orders will be dealt with on an urgent basis at a magistrates court, and police powers to disperse disorderly or potentially disorderly gatherings are defined, which was not the case previously.⁶⁹ Yet these amendments to POSA have in reality failed to improve the political environment as the police continue to selectively use the law to prevent opposition meetings and rallies.

For example, on January 23, 2008, police prevented hundreds of members of the Tsvangirai-led faction of the MDC from carrying out a “freedom march” for a new constitution even though the party had notified the police in accordance with the new amendments.⁷⁰ Police initially sanctioned the march but later withdrew permission, arguing that they had evidence the march would be violent.⁷¹ The MDC appealed to the magistrate’s court in Harare as provided for in the amendments to POSA, but the magistrate upheld the police decision and instead ordered the MDC to hold a rally and not a march. In reaction to attempts by MDC supporters to continue their march in defiance of the order, police used teargas and beat the supporters with batons.

Lawyers informed Human Rights Watch that the amendments to POSA are unlikely to open up the space for the opposition to campaign, as has been widely claimed by the government. Incidents documented by Human Rights Watch and local organizations such as Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) indicate that either the police and the judiciary have yet to familiarize themselves with the amendments to POSA, or are deliberately misinterpreting the law to prevent demonstrations from taking place. Irene Petras, the director of ZLHR, informed Human Rights Watch that two MDC freedom marches in Mutare could not take place in January when the police issued prohibition orders. Despite appeals, the Mutare magistrate’s court decided to allow the party to congregate but not to march through the town.⁷²

While the MDC and independent candidate Simba Makoni have been able to hold major rallies in the main cities and some of the ruling party strongholds of the country in the build up to these elections, opposition representatives in the rural areas, in particular in the ruling party strongholds, have not been able to campaign or meet as freely.

A recent report in the state-run Herald newspaper offers an example of the opposition’s inability to campaign freely in ruling party strongholds, despite the amendments to POSA: On February 20 a magistrate sentenced an MDC party chairman in Bindura to six months’ imprisonment, three of which were suspended, for convening an unsanctioned political meeting on February 10. The MDC party chairman had called a meeting of 20 MDC activists at a compound in the area.⁷³ The magistrate later ordered the party chairman to serve 105 hours of community service.⁷⁴

In September 2007 Human Rights Watch interviewed four opposition supporters from Manicaland who said that they were unable to hold MDC meetings or workshops in the rural areas because of intimidation and harassment from local militias and war veterans.⁷⁵ On the one occasion they attempted to hold a small meeting in September, they were arrested by police under POSA for holding a meeting without police permission. In February 2008 five MDC supporters from the same area told Human Rights Watch that they were forced to hold clandestine meetings because police frequently denied them permission to hold meetings in the area.⁷⁶  On March 5, 19 MDC youths were arrested in Karoi, Mashonaland West, and accused of gathering without police approval. The youths claimed they were putting up posters and people had gathered around to see the posters. They were released on bail on the following day.⁷⁷