II. Taking Action to Address the Human Rights CrisisSADC member states have identified peace, security and the promotion of human rights as key concerns within the region. The Declaration and Treaty of SADC calls on SADC and its member states to act in accordance with several principles which include solidarity, peace, and security as well as human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.11 According to the declaration, one of the key objectives of SADC shall be to “consolidate, defend, and maintain democracy, peace, security, and stability.”12 Human Rights Watch believes that ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law in all Southern African countries is essential to peace and security in the region. The regional ramifications of the deteriorating human rights situation in Zimbabwe have already been witnessed. The potential further threat of destabilization and lawlessness to the entire region—and the international perceptions of Southern Africa that are created by Zimbabwe’s flouting of international human rights standards—make this a crucial issue for all the governments of the region and for the credibility of SADC. It is vital that the Heads of State and Government of SADC send a clear, visible, and unambiguous message from their August 2007 summit, repudiating the Zimbabwean government’s policy of political repression through laws and through the unaccountability of Zimbabwe’s police, army, and security forces, and setting out a clear commitment to a leadership role for SADC. A. The Deployment of Human Rights MonitorsSADC must ensure that the Zimbabwean government makes demonstrable progress towards ending human rights abuses, prosecuting those who perpetrate such abuses, strengthening the rule of law, implementing judicial reforms, and ensuring the rights to freedom of association and expression. To that end, Human Rights Watch urges the SADC Heads of State to deploy SADC human rights monitors to independently monitor and publicly report on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. With presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2008, the early presence of human rights monitors would be an important step towards creating an environment in which free and fair elections can take place and in which democratic institutions could be reestablished in Zimbabwe. This would be entirely consistent with one of SADC’s stated objectives, which is to “promote the development of democratic institutions and practices within the territories of State Parties and encourage the observance of universal human rights as provided for in the Charters and Conventions of the African Union and the United Nations respectively.”13 B. Priority Areas of ConcernIn addition to the deployment of independent human rights monitors, Human Rights Watch urges SADC and its member states to continue to exert sustained pressure on the government of Zimbabwe in the following areas: 1. Freedom of Association and AssemblyZimbabwean citizens are routinely arrested for peacefully and publicly expressing their opinions. The police in Zimbabwe have often used key provisions of legislation such as the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA), and more recently the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to justify arrests that violate basic rights. The police have used provisions in POSA to strictly monitor public meetings or violently disrupt peaceful demonstrations.14 Nongovernmental organizations such as WOZA and the NCA have been regularly victimized by these laws. In the past seven years, hundreds of members of both organizations have been arbitrarily arrested and detained under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, POSA, and MOA.15 The broad wording of POSA and the misapplication of some provisions of the act16 have resulted in repeated violations of the rights of Zimbabweans to freely assemble, or organize peaceful demonstrations.17 The charges against many of the activists arrested under POSA are either dropped or dismissed in court. SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
2. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading TreatmentTorture and other mistreatment of activists by police and members of Zimbabwe’s intelligence services remains a serious and systemic human rights problem in Zimbabwe. Detainees in police custody are at significant risk of torture. Acts amounting to torture that Human Rights Watch has documented include severe beatings that involved being punched, kicked, and struck with batons; beatings on the soles of the feet; repeated banging of detainees’ heads against walls; and the shackling of detainees in painful positions.18 In some cases torture is an element of coercive interrogations, while in others it is used as a form of punishment for the activists’ perceived leanings or intentions. Cases of torture that Human Rights Watch has documented include the arrest and torture of 15 trade unionists from the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions on September 13, 2006, the frequent torture of student activists in police custody, and acts amounting to torture that were perpetrated against the 50 opposition and civil society activists in police custody on March 11, 2007.19 The government has done little to address the issue of torture and mistreatment of detainees in police custody. Incidents of torture by the police and intelligence officers are rarely investigated. To Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the government has not investigated, prosecuted, or disciplined any security officials or police officers for their role in the torture and abuse of detainees in any of the cases documented by Human Rights Watch. SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
3. Freedom of Expression and InformationThere continue to be serious limits to freedom of expression and information in Zimbabwe, particularly in the form of threats of closure of independent media organizations, as well as the intimidation, arbitrary arrest, and criminal prosecution of journalists. The government’s actions seem primarily designed to inhibit criticism of government officials and institutions, and to muzzle independent reporting and commentary on the political situation in the country. In the last five years, Zimbabwe’s government has enacted laws that give it discretionary control over which actors may practice journalism and operate a media outlet, as well as broad powers to prosecute persons critical of the government. Legislation such as the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, POSA, and AIPPA—which requires registration and accreditation of journalists—continue to be selectively used to restrict independent media activity. AIPPA has also been used to restrict the flow and content of national and international media coverage.20 The law requires all journalists and media houses to register with the government. While in and of itself this is not a problem, Human Rights Watch has found that the government run Media and Information Commission (MIC) has used AIPPA to threaten newspapers with closure if they are deemed to be critical of the government. Owners of media houses who do not register with the MIC face up to two years in prison if convicted.21 An amendment passed on January 7, 2005, provides for criminal penalties to journalists who operate without accreditation.22 Under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, journalists convicted of publishing or communicating falsehoods “prejudicial to the state” face up to 20 years imprisonment and up to one year imprisonment if convicted of undermining the authority of or insulting the president.23 In March and April 2007, the government arrested several journalists when they tried to report on the unrest in the aftermath of the events of March 11.24 On April 1, independent journalist Gift Phiri was arrested in Harare and reportedly tortured while in police custody. He was released on bail after four days in custody, and charged with practicing without a license and “abusing journalistic privilege” under section 79 (1) and section 80 (1)(b) of AIPPA.25 SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
4. Harassment and Obstruction of Civil Society Activists, including Human Rights DefendersThe determination of human rights defenders to expose abuses and to create conditions for the respect of Zimbabweans’ rights has made them targets of the authorities which often use repression and intimidation to silence human rights advocates during the course of their daily work. Human rights defenders are repeatedly subjected to threats, arbitrary arrests, and harassment by the government. For example, the authorities arrested and detained for three days human rights lawyers Alec Muchadehama and Andrew Makoni outside the High Court in Harare on May 4, 2007, after submitting court papers on behalf of an opposition activist they were representing.26 SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
5. Excessive Use of Force by Police and other Security ForcesThe police use of excessive force against unarmed and peaceful demonstrators in Zimbabwe has become a common occurrence. On several occasions police have beaten protestors with truncheons and rifle butts and on some occasion have used tear gas and fired on peaceful protestors. For example, on May 8, 2007, police in Harare beat several lawyers who were gathered outside the High Court to protest the unlawful arrest of two other lawyers Alec Muchadehama and Andrew Makoni.27 Police forced some of the lawyers including Beatrice Mtetwa, president of the Zimbabwe Law Society, into a police truck before driving to a secluded area and reportedly beating them.28 Police have also used unnecessary lethal force against unarmed demonstrators and other activists. For example, MDC member Gift Tandare was killed when police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators during clashes with the police in the immediate aftermath of the March 11 prayer meeting.29 On March 12, two MDC supporters were seriously injured when police opened fire on mourners at the funeral of Gift Tandare. The police have not investigated any of the shootings.30 SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
6. ImpunityImpunity is a major problem in Zimbabwe, with the government doing little to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by the police and other state agents or to bring those who commit such abuses to justice. The investigation and prosecution of officials implicated in rights violations has regularly been blocked by the state’s political manipulation of the police; the obstruction and prevention of human rights organizations from investigating accounts of human rights violations; the undermining of the independence of the judiciary and the circumvention of the rule of law; and the lack of an independent mechanism within the police forces to deal with abuses carried out by the police. Few of the abuses documented by Human Rights Watch have been investigated by the police. SADC should call on the government of Zimbabwe to:
11 Declaration and Treaty of SADC, Windhoek, Namibia, August 17, 1992, http://www.sadc.int/key_documents/treaties/sadc_treaty.php (accessed, July 22, 2007), arts. 4 (b) and (c). 12 Amended Declaration and Treaty of SADC, art. 5 (c). 13 SADC Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation, Blantyre, Malawi, August 14, 2001, art. 2 (g). 14 For more on the police use of POSA and other laws to justify arbitrary arrests, see Human Rights Watch, You Will Be Thoroughly Beaten: The Brutal Suppression of Dissent in Zimbabwe, Volume 18, No. 10(A), November 2006, http://hrw.org/reports/2006/zimbabwe1106/zimbabwe1106web.pdf. 15 Ibid. 16 The police have loosely interpreted certain provisions of POSA to justify arrests. For example, Section 24 of POSA merely requires that police be notified ahead of time about a public meeting; once the police have been notified the meeting can go ahead. However, police authorities often insist that police permission—and not mere notification—is required to hold public meetings, gatherings or demonstrations. This permission is granted or withheld on arbitrary grounds and is frequently denied to activists who try to hold public meetings or demonstrations. 17 Ibid. 18 Human Rights Watch, You Will Be Thoroughly Beaten: The Brutal Suppression of Dissent in Zimbabwe. 19 Ibid. See also Human Rights Watch, Bashing Dissent: Escalating Violence and State Repression in Zimbabwe, Volume 19, No. 6(A), May 2007, http://hrw.org/reports/2007/zimbabwe0507/zimbabwe0507web.pdf. 20 For more on AIPPA see Human Rights Watch, Not a Level Playing Field: Zimbabwe’s Parliamentary Elections in 2005, March 21, 2005, http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/zimbabwe0305.pdf. 21 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act of 2002. 22 CAP 10: 27, AIPPA Amendment Act, 2004, entered into force January 7, 2005, section 83. 23 Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] Act 23 / 2004, entered into force July 1, 2006, sections 31 and 33. 24 Human Rights Watch, Bashing Dissent: Escalating Violence and State Repression. 25 Ibid. 26 Statement by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, emailed to Human Rights Watch, May 7, 2007. 27 Statement by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, emailed to Human Rights Watch, May 9, 2007. 28 Ibid. 29 Human Rights Watch, Bashing Dissent: Escalating Violence and State Repression in Zimbabwe. 30 Ibid. |