Messages From Zimbabwe

ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema said on Friday that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe must step down.

Malema met Mugabe earlier this year during a visit to Zimbabwe.

He has also praised Zanu-PF’s land redistribution programme.

But Malema said Mugabe must go.

“In as much as we support the revolutionary programme in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe must hand over to those young chaps so that we engage with [them] on the same level. We will never agree with permanent leadership,” Malema said.

(Source)

The notion that, to qualify as people-driven, the current constitution making process must exclude politicians and be spearheaded by civil society is as malevolent as it is misleading. Of course, the case is pushed most assiduously by various interest groups in a naked and doomed attempt to claim relevance without losing the high ground.

It is a proposition that discloses the cancerous condition within Zimbabwean society where some individuals have become desperate to the point of saying anything, however erroneous or self-serving, solely to raise their own profile and impress generous donor communities. Nothing could be more treacherous.

South Africa’s wonderful constitution is considered among the most advanced in the world with, among numerous other progressive provisions, an entrenched, finely crafted and generally respected Bill of Rights – yet it is the product not of any consultative process among the populace but of discussions and negotiations between political parties.

Not only were the leadership of the African National Congress and the then ruling National Party influential in both setting in motion and determining the negotiation process, they were also influential in deciding its substantive outcomes.

The point is that, while the involvement of civil society in a democracy is fundamental, the fact that it is not at the forefront of the drafting process does not render the resultant constitution any less people-driven.

Objective tests are more reliable than out-and-out grandstanding – and those tests can easily be stated. Were the people’s views sought? Were those views freely provided? Both must be answered in the affirmative to pass public scrutiny.

If there are reservations about the content of the new Zimbabwean constitution, it should not be because the ZCTU or, worse still, the NCA and ZINASU, elected not to be part of that process or merely because their ‘important’ input was disregarded. It will be because the people’s views were not sought or that their ability to express them was curtailed.

There is a dangerous absurdity in the argument that, because Dr. Madhuku and his backslappers feel they have been sidelined in the crafting of a new constitution, the whole country should for that reason alone blindly ‘reject’ the outcome. Such stunts serve no constructive purpose.

In part, this posturing explains why as Zimbabweans, after so many years of fighting for emancipation, we have yet to defeat tyranny. Whereas our enemy has remained determined, resolute and united, we have displayed a dangerous and damaging inclination to act disjointedly with neither unity of purpose nor meaningful coordination.

Self-indulgence cannot be pitted against discipline with any hope of obtaining a satisfactory outcome.

At every moment in the history of our struggle our ability to advance as a people has been hindered by the discord which has of late found expression through Madhuku and company.

In truth, if we fail to see the importance of acting in concert and speaking with one voice as one people, one nation, then we are indeed doomed.

If all that should matter is for Dr. Madhuku, for instance, to be revered and exalted whenever there is talk of a constitution just because he is chairman of an organization with the word ‘constitutional’ in its name…..

If all that should count is to criticise even the most progressive of initiatives simply in order to save oneself from the embarrassing prospect of being irrelevant….

If our failure to think, speak and act as a people united actually serves to promote the dictatorship rather than dismantle it… then those seeking a free and democratic country will ask, ‘Why bother?’

Morgan Tsvangirai’s failure to mobilize Zimbabwean people-power makes him and his MDC just as culpable as Madhuku and the others, if not more so. At best it represents a woeful lack of leadership. At worst it smacks of a desire to hold on ferociously to a monopoly of opposition politics in Zimbabwe.

We need Morgan Tsvangirai to encourage and promote unity of purpose among the many disparate groups of Zimbabweans committed to restoring and sustaining democracy in Zimbabwe. We need his charisma and inspiration to rally every progressive individual, organization and party into one united front if we are to win the battle against tyranny.

Zimbabweans pay heed: unless and until we speak and act collectively with one voice, as one people, one nation, our enemy will continue to revel in the status quo and tyranny will still oppress our society for many more years to come. Political posturing, disorganization, self-interest and disunity have nowhere been known to disturb let alone destroy dictatorships. Far from posing any threat, they are the very elements that enable tyrants to divide and rule. Of all nations, we should know better. We must act on this knowledge.

Psychology Maziwisa LLB, Union for Sustainable Democracy, leader@usd.org.zw

Vivacious Violet Gonda is a Zimbabwean journalist who is persona non grata in her own country simply because she is part of that rare breed of courageous radio broadcasters willing to take on a rogue state. Such is the paranoia in President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF regime that broadcast laws that deliberately prevent alternative opinion are entrenched in the legislative DNA.

The positive spinoff of this scenario has been a proliferation of shortwave and Internet broadcast stations spanning the globe, the most popular being VOA Studio 7  based in Washington DC, Voice of the People in Botswana and Violet’s own SW Radio Africa in England.

On many occasions, Zimbabweans and gullible Africans have been made to believe that vice and toxic rumour is embedded in such alternative viewpoint. In several ways, it is for this reason that ZANU PF refuses to take the Global Political Agreement forward, claiming as long as Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC does not engineer closure of such stations, Mugabe will refuse to cooperate.

Bulls eat grass, but the fresh results of their digestion are unpleasant to the eye. Had there been a more family-friendly term to describe the product of this biological process, I would have had no problem labelling ZANU PF’s opinion.

Ironically, Gonda and her friends do not want to live in forced exile because of family commitments back in Zimbabwe. But as long as they face arrest, and as long as the broadcast regulations outlaw alternative opinion, we Zimbabweans at home will continue to tune in to VOA Studio 7, Voice of the People and SW Radio Africa for REAL news. What we know is that the MDC have no chance in hell to influence the closure of these stations. That makes me feel good!

But it is not all diamond that glitters from these alternative airwaves – at least according to Arthur Mutambara. There is consensus amongst his supporters that most, if not all, external broadcasters have taken a position to support Tsvangirai’s MDC-T formation at the expense of all other progressive forces of democracy. Their argument is that in the haste to rid Zimbabwe of the curse of authoritarian dictatorship, these broadcasters paint anything or anyone who takes a side that opposes Tsvangirai as anti-struggle.

They continue that  the MDC-T’s  failures are not sufficiently interrogated, while only the opinion of analysts who have something negative to say about Mutambara are given undue prominence. For example, the best news item that can ever emerge from rural Matabeleland is when councillors from Mutambara’s formation defect to Tsvangirai’s party. Such news, Mutambara’s people argue, takes precedence over the antics of Theresa Makone, Tsvangirai’s new home affairs boss who is related to Mugabe’s political hitman, Didymus Mutasa.

The two have been making the front pages for attempting to spring  habitual ZANU PF property rights violators from prison. ZANU PF, who term alternative studios “pirate radio stations”, amplify Tsvangirai’s internal party struggles, reminding readers that Makone is the same woman whose husband “controls” Tsvangirai via what they call MDC’s “kitchen cabinet”. At one time, Makone was accused of displacing the MDC women’s assembly leader in order to exert more influence on the party’s strategy. And all this – Mutambara’s people argue – does not receive airplay on “ pirate radio stations”.

As a regular contributor to these useful and value-adding radio stations, I attempt to present balanced opinions. Freelance analysts like me do not influence editorial policy, but we need to pitch our commentary from an objective perspective. I have no sacred cows. More importantly,  Gonda would not be able to influence what I say, but she would be in a position to decide what to publish depending on her editorial slant.

For example, in one of SW Radio Africa Friday night programmes called Hot Seat, Tony Reeler, director of the Research and Advocacy Unit, commenting on Mutambara’s position in government, tells Gonda: “So he’s there by grace and favour of the agreement but not by any other ground.”

A more mundane interpretation of this cryptic statement is that Mutambara is not in the coalition government by virtue of electoral credibility, but that he is the president of an MDC minority party with few seats in a remote part of Zimbabwe. Obviously with Zimbabwe’s first past the post electoral system, it would have been unthinkable to have the professor in government. Herein lies the need for progressive “pirate” analysts to offer objective radio commentary.

My angle would be that the GPA brought into government hundreds of worthless politicians from all three sides. Tsvangirai himself has on several occasions expelled councillors and recently reshuffled ministers. Accusations of corruption, underhand deals and inefficiency have plagued his party, while neutrals argue that as prime minister, Tsvangirai is guilty of soft-padding Mugabe in international foras.

Observers insist that incomes, infrastructure and public facilities are only marginally better than before the coalition, while power blackouts hound an industry struggling to emerge from recession. The human rights sector is disastrous, with no single conviction of ZANU PF zealots who murdered, maimed and raped innocent citizens in June 2008. His critics argue he has failed to rein in rogue elements raiding commercial farms including those properties protected under regional bilateral agreements. Therefore to diminish Mutambara’s role in government without a rub off on Tsvangirai’s personal political reputation is an impossible feat.

Reeler himself is a product of a decade-old struggle against dictatorship, a flag bearer of a contingent of brave human rights defenders that have survived determined ZANU PF antagonism and intimidation. In this noble group of principled citizens one finds peace campaigner Jestina Mukoko, lawyer Irene Petras, constitutional expert Lovemore Madhuku and countless other civil society activists.

But, unlike Mutambara who has risen from mere student activism to national leadership, I and Reeler have little other than political vuvuzelas to show for our rhetoric. My point is simple. This is no time to denigrate each others’ value propositions. If civil society was half as effective as its loud voice, Mugabe would have abandoned ship in 2002.

(Source)

SW Radio Africa Transcript

Reeler is the Director of the Research and Advocacy Unit. His organisation recently released the report: ’What are the options for Zimbabwe? Dealing with the obvious!’  Robert Mugabe says elections will be held next year with or without a new constitution and his counterpart in the coalition, Morgan Tsvangirai, agrees the way forward is for an election next year. But what needs to be addressed before it’s possible to hold a truly free and fair election in Zimbabwe ? Does stability bring good elections or good elections bring stability?

BROADCAST: 18 June 2010

VIOLET GONDA : My guest on the Hot Seat programme is Tony Reeler, the director of the Research and Advocacy Unit with his analysis on the unfolding events in Zimbabwe. Tony, let’s start with getting your thoughts on the situation in Zimbabwe. What is your reading of the political situation right now?

TONY REELER: Violet as you may know RAU recently put out a report entitled “What are the options” and we put that out very much in response to the situation as it was at the time and the report came out about a month ago and I think we would argue that the situation has not changed in any material detail, so the arguments we were making in that brief report still stand. If you remember that report, we analysed the situation from the March 2008 election to the current time and essentially what we were arguing was that there was an opportunity in March 2008 for the crisis to be resolved if SADC had acted in a completely different way. They didn’t, the June election emerged and as a consequence of that we ended up with the Global Political Agreement and since that time, what we see is a very polarised, stuck process of an inclusive government that doesn’t really operate like an inclusive government – it operates like two governments largely struggling with each other and despite some small changes if you want, in the humanitarian and economic situation, the major political issues are not being resolved. It’s an inclusive government in name but it certainly doesn’t behave like an inclusive government in behaviour – you know they contradict each other, they countermand each other, they don’t implement the Agreement in full.

So our view was that Zimbabwe was in a political crisis in March 2008 and remains in a political crisis in June 2010. And the question we were trying to address was – what will resolve the crisis? And there are many different views currently at the moment about how this crisis is going to be resolved. The dominant view is it will be resolved by mediation or it will be resolved by the parties coming together and finally agreeing on what the final implementation of the Agreement will be. But our view was, that whatever happens, the final resolution of the crisis will involve an election and so our view was – let’s start looking at the quality of the election because it is the case that all elections since 2000 have been highly disputed affairs and rejected in the main by most of the international community. That’s what we were arguing in brief.

GONDA: We will come to the issue of the elections, but I want to go back to the issue of the stalemate. In your view, why do you think the partners in this GNU, in this inclusive government, are failing to resolve their differences? Why can they not get agreement between them?

REELER: Well you’ve got to start off with the understanding that of the two main parties, they are ideologically different if you want and certainly are competitors. They’re not coming together out of mutual desire to work together. They’re coming together because the situation demands a forced marriage. So in this sense, the Global Political Agreement which is argued to be a solution is really only a starting point for bringing two largely hostile parties together to work out a future. It’s not a solution in itself, it’s a mechanism for a solution and what is working out in this process are the differences between the two parties that existed before the Global Political Agreement was signed and it represents the difficulty of two parties who have been contesting for political power and control of the State since 2000, since before 2000. So this is a marriage of inconvenience you might even put it, it’s not the choice of either of these two parties to be in this relationship together and therefore one must expect an enormous amount of friction and difficulty and suspicion between the two parties.

GONDA: As you said the talks are endless but what do you think is the strategy of the different parties in this unity government?

REELER: I think both parties are clearly committed to not being the person to break the Agreement for a start. I think that would put them in bad odour with SADC because SADC is the key player in this, they brokered this Agreement and they’re supposed to watch it be implemented and act as guarantors. So neither party wishes to break it. Both parties are still in a sense contesting for a balance of power within it – you know – all this argument about who can have which ministry and who can have which governorship and the issues about the Reserve Bank and the Attorney General. That is the central problem with this marriage of inconvenience.

GONDA: And you keep saying both parties but of course there are three parties in this inclusive government. What do you think is the strategy of the Mutambara led MDC?

REELER: Well I think if you’ve been looking at opinion polls. We put one out recently on the views of women and Freedom House did one and then MPOI did one earlier or last year and it’s quite clear that this is a very, very, very minority party. The MDC-M grouping is there by courtesy of the Global Political Agreement but clearly in our view and I think in most people’s view, command no real popular support. So I think their major role is obfuscation. They represent a third opinion and sometimes the third opinion is pretty strange but they’re not in a sense, in our view, added value for this inclusive government because the issue is clearly a contest between the MDC-T and ZANU PF and I think their major role is confusing matters.

GONDA: But what about statements we’ve heard from some of the members of this party, especially from Professor Arthur Mutambara who maintains that his party holds the balance of power in this inclusive government and in a way has become the go-between in terms of bringing the two main parties together?

REELER: Well he’s right. He holds the balance of power but he holds the balance of power because of an elite pact not because that’s how the voters behaved. If we looked at how his party performed in the polls in 2008 it was pretty appallingly poor so he is a very much minority party so it’s a bit fatuous really to argue that he holds the balance of power. The balance of power is held by people who have popular support and can call on real constituencies; he’s there because of an elite pact and because the way the Agreement has been configured and the way things stand is that he’s given a right of veto at a very elite level. We don’t think he represents populist opinion at all and certainly in the opinion poll that RAU did recently with women, I think two women in over two thousand people interviewed thought he had any power in the inclusive government at all. So he’s there by grace and favour of the Agreement but not by any other ground.

GONDA: I understand that most of the women in the survey also said they would not vote for ZANU PF?

REELER: Well I think there’s a continuous trend and it’s always a difficult thing to look at potential voting from opinion surveys. The recent British election will tell you that but consistently over three opinion surveys, you have MDC Tsvangirai hovering at around something like 50%, ZANU PF somewhere between nine and 12% but you have 27% of the people unwilling to state their political party preference and you have to decide which way are those folk going. Are they going in favour of ZANU PF, are they going in favour of MDC-T, are they all closet MDC-M supporters? But I think the general trend is and that’s borne out by the March election and continued is that ZANU PF increasingly has, or has decreasingly popular support in the country and that is of course a material issue for any future election.

GONDA: And what are the main concerns of the people on the ground, especially the people that participated in the survey?

REELER: Well we asked them a very interesting question. We asked them what is the way forward? And we gave them a choice of – what are the three most important things for you to solve the problems with Zimbabwe? And that came back in rank order, three things. They said Number One – an end to violence, Number Two – free and fair elections and Number Three – democracy and those are very important things coming from ordinary citizens because that’s what has continuously emerged from the Afro-barometer surveys over the last five or six years - is they show that Zimbabweans have a very acute understanding of what democracy is, its manifestations and that they also have a very acute understanding that they don’t have a democracy.

So what you can see is Zimbabweans want a solution, they want a solution in a particular way, they want elections that are non-violent that restore democracy essentially. I think they also said there has been some improvement due to the inclusive government and the Global Political Agreement and they saw some improvements in health and a few improvements in education but they also saw many areas in which there was no improvement whatsoever. What we are hearing from discussions within communities are people who are deeply concerned about whether this Global Political Agreement and the inclusive government is working and people who are very concerned that there is a resolution to this crisis. And I think what people are saying is they understand quite clearly that the solution to a political crisis will be an election. That’s the Zimbabwean perspective. In other countries what used to happen was that you used to have military coups or rebellions as we’ve had to do to get rid of white colonial power here but Zimbabweans are saying they put their faith in an electoral process. That’s what they hope will resolve the crisis and clearly what that means is, is that people’s votes translate into the reality they expect and the majority of people, when they vote, expect a particular outcome, that they will in fact elect the party of their choice.

GONDA: We have heard what the principals in this coalition government have been saying on the issue of elections. We have Mutambara on the one hand saying that we need reforms first before we have an election but ZANU PF and, well Mugabe and Tsvangirai on the other hand have both said they want elections as soon as possible and in fact next year. In your view, what mechanism will actually resolve this problem that we have and restore stability?

REELER: Those are the two arguments currently aren’t they? One that says stability will bring good elections and the other argument says good elections will bring stability and these are the two arguments that have been discussed. You have the principals of the two major players saying we have to go to elections, the minority group saying too early. You have MPs saying it’s too early and there’s an enormous amount of contradictory opinion about whether we should be going to elections or not. Now in our view the question is not so much whether or when we go to elections, it will have to be at some point, we will have to go to elections, it is to do with the quality of the elections that is the key issue here. And that’s the major problem isn’t it since 2000? In the last ten years all these elections are disputed.

Now in our paper when we were arguing about what were the options, we pointed out that in a way, March 2008 was almost an exemplary election. There was very little pre-poll violence, there was still pre-poll violence; the process of the election through the voting and in the early stages of publishing the result looked very good indeed. The consequence of that election was a very clear result – Morgan Tsvangirai came first in the presidential race; MDC-T had a clear majority and that’s the result that the election showed. Now at that particular point and this is the key issue for elections, that particular point, SADC had a number of options. They could have insisted and applied pressure to say you’ve got a clear result, stability requires you to go with this result and we would put pressure on ZANU PF to accept the result, Morgan Tsvangirai sworn in as president, the MDC assumes the government. That didn’t happen and the rest is history.

So our view is that it’s the quality of an election that we have to be looking at. Not when but how. Whether it’s in 2011 or 2012 or 2020, the crisis will be resolved by an election and that election has to be genuine, free and fair and able to be accepted by the entire international community and the key to that is SADC. They have been given by Africa, the mandate to deal with the regional issue, the regional body SADC has empowered South Africa to be the mediator and the facilitator – whatever term one wants to use on this thing – and they will be the guarantors and the facilitators of any election. And so the west and anybody else can scream and shout, but in the end, it’s SADC who will have a primary role in ensuring that the election meet the minimum standards that apply in SADC region and then also ensuring that if the result, for example were to favour the Tsvangirai faction, that they guarantee transfer of power. There’s nothing that the EC or the United States or anybody else can do about that and it’s not entirely an internal matter because now the GPA has involved the entire region, SADC are the guarantors and that’s the key, but they will insist on the kinds of conditions that will allow Zimbabwean citizens to freely choose the government of their choice and guarantee the transfer of power takes place. That for us in a nutshell is the problem and it’s very important that we’re looking at new constitutions and national healing and those things but if we’re not doing the work that will ensure that, with or without a constitution, there will be a genuine free fair acceptable election, then the crisis will continue in our view.

GONDA: I was actually going to ask that with or without a new constitution, can Zimbabwe’s security forces for example, be brought under civilian control because they have also been a major factor in this crisis?

REELER: Well I think the aspiration of the Global Political Agreement was that there would be constitutional reform followed by an election and that constitution would lay the grounds for an election and a new democratic state. Mugabe has already said with or without a constitution, there will be elections next year and we agreed, with or without a new constitution, there will be elections. I think we have some pessimism in RAU that the constitutional process will deliver the kind of constitution that Zimbabweans want, but that’s a personal view, we can’t pre-judge the process, the process may be highly effective. But in terms of what I was talking about earlier, in SADC guaranteeing or creating the conditions for free and fair elections, the critical issue is clearly the security forces must be under total civilian control and that doesn’t mean of one party, it means under the control of the government as a whole and we don’t see much evidence that that has in fact taken place, notwithstanding the National Security Council. When members of JOC can carpet a trade unionist and complain about a report and a film, they are clearly interfering in civilian affairs. They have no right to do that, there’s no legal basis for them doing it but they nonetheless do it. So that is a key issue as you say, is the return of the security forces to genuine civilian control. It’s a crunch issue but against that is also the issues for elections, as I think electoral commission needs to be genuinely independent and has control of all aspects of elections – the voters’ roll, the limitation, the polling, how the media is used to get people’s views across.

In every way, what we’ve seen in past elections is that every aspect of the election has failed the test or certainly not conformed to the SADC principles and guidelines for the holding of democratic elections – fails it on every front. So there’s a big job to be done; the security forces are important but there’s a whole range of other things that need to be addressed with urgency, in our view, if there’s a probability that there’s going to be an election in 2011.

GONDA: Right and how realistic are calls for a peacekeeping force?

REELER: They are good calls. My view is that you put peacekeeping forces in countries that are failed states or, you don’t put, United Nations will only appear in any of these situations where the country has an inability to be able to run itself. This is not the case in Zimbabwe. The problem is that they don’t obey certain parts of the government, so I don’t think we’ll get a peacekeeping force, I think probably the best we can have is incredibly intense observation and that would require the cooperation of the State in Zimbabwe where you have observers observing the electoral commission, the police, the army, the prisons, the civics, the political parties, the rallies – there are different ways of doing this thing. The notion that we would turn over administration to some kind of peacekeeping force I think is very unlikely but I think SADC could insist on the kinds of level of observation, very intense observation that could ensure a genuine election.

GONDA: SADC is due to hold a summit in August and although it’s not clear yet whether Zimbabwe’s deadlocked power sharing agreement will be an item on the agenda, speculation is rife that President Zuma may advocate for fresh elections for Zimbabwe when he submits his report to the regional body. What are you reading from Zuma’s style of mediation and how significant is his role now to break this political impasse?

REELER: OK, I think he’s already made the statement that he, and Ian Khama has made the similar statement, that this crisis will be resolved by election and we hear speculation that he wants a negotiated timetable for election and I suspect that he and every other SADC leader knows just as well as anybody else that this will be resolved by election but I think he will, my guess is that he will call for some kind of timetable to that. He’s not going to leave this process open-ended to drag on for year after year after year.

I think his style is clearly different to Mbeki, it’s been a much more assertive style in dealing with Zimbabwe but on the other hand he also has the constraints of being the hegemonic power in this region and definitely not wanting to be seen like a bully and his government, or the government he has inherited has instituted this whole process of the Global Political Agreement so they are going to have to try and make that work too. But I think his hands are to some extent tied by the fact that we have the GPA and if the parties here continue to insist endlessly that they can make this thing work then his hands are tied, but I think he will on the other hand also, push very hard for some kind of resolution and that’s going to be the difficulty because it’s one thing to push for a negotiated timetable for elections, it’s entirely another to guarantee that those elections in the end will be the kind of elections that resolve the crisis.

GONDA: Right and back home, critics have said that the leadership of the MDC is now completely consumed in trying to make this GNU work but on the other hand the party’s not building any structures, internal structures and preparing for elections. Now given the fact that all party leaders are in government, will it be prudent for the MDC to reshuffle perhaps cabinet ministers back to the party in preparation for the next elections?

REELER: I think the MDC, the Tsvangirai faction has a very, very difficult task. They do have to try to make the government work, they committed themselves to it and they’re trying very hard to make it work and that clearly takes enormous resources of a party that has had an extremely difficult time in the last ten years. So I think they’re stretched, they’re stretched in making government work and therefore they’re also to some extent stretched in trying to build the party structures ahead of elections. But I think the MDC, one of the positions I have heard from the MDC is that they don’t fear elections, what they fear is their inability to effect transfer of power - in fact they won’t be given power, they can win an election but they’re not going to end up with the government.

So I think they are being pretty realistic. I think it’s terribly easy to criticise the MDC all the time and blame them for everything that is going wrong but the reality is they are working against a party that is absolutely determined not to surrender political power and there has been considerable evidence of ways in which they’ve tried to maintain their political power by means outside the constitution. So MDC is committed to try to do it within the constitution and within democracy and using democratic tools. That can be very difficult with a political party that refuses to play the game by the same rule. So I think they have to be realistic and they do know they’re going to go for elections and I think that’s why Morgan Tsvangirai said we will face elections and I think they are doing their best on the ground to try and build party structures and maintain government but it’s an exceptionally difficult task for them.

GONDA: And as a human rights activist, what are your thoughts on the issue of, on justice issues? Can you have stability at the price of injustice?

REELER: You know its back to that old argument – stability produces democracy or democracy produces stability? I tend to believe that democracy produces stability and that’s a general argument I think that’s accepted widely and that the difficulty in Zimbabwe is that so many institutions have been compromised in the last ten years. We have deep concerns about the whole judicial process, we’ve had deep concerns about the behaviour of the Attorney General, we have deep concerns about the partisanship of the police and so on and so on. So it is a very, very difficult situation here and that the argument I think that some people are saying ‘well we have to transform all those institutions before we have a possibility of a decent election’, and there’s some merit in that argument – if we were to have security sector reform and the police would now work wholly within the constitution and the police act and the judiciary could be seen to be absolutely independent of any political influence and the media space is completely open, shortwave radio could broadcast from within Zimbabwe, there wouldn’t be a problem, would there?

And so the argument is can you achieve those things without an election first? And this is the crunch political question, in our view, is we don’t believe that those things can be transformed without an election and a transfer of political power because the current political power maintains that situation as it is. And there are different views about that, I’m not sure which view is going to prevail, the only thing that I can be 100% certain of is that whether it’s next year, the year after or the year after that, we will have an election and that election will either resolve the crisis or it will attenuate and it will go on.

GONDA: And a final word Tony?

REELER: I think people tend to be so desperately pessimistic about Zimbabwe. I think that we should see what Zimbabweans have done in the last ten years through democratic peaceful struggle, is quite exceptional and I think people need to pat themselves on the back. The country is a disaster in many ways but there are such encouraging signs all over the place of people’s demand for democracy and understanding of democracy that I think it can only be a very bright future for Zimbabwe if we can resolve the problems and if we can persuade SADC to do its job and do its job properly.

GONDA: That was Tony Reeler, the director of the Research and Advocacy Unit. Thank you very much Tony for speaking to us on the programme Hot Seat.

REELER: Pleasure Violet, keep well.

Source: SWRadioAfrica

President Robert Mugabe used the recent G-15 summit in Tehran to make new threats to grab British and other foreign-owned business interests in Zimbabwe.

The threats were accompanied by the kind of extreme, almost incoherent rhetoric which places him in the same league as former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who hounded out the Asian population from that country in the 1970s through similar racial and economic persecution.

Mugabe, 86, who faces an imminent election campaign after the end of the current transitional unity government, upped the stakes by threatening to seize foreign-owned mining interests, after “indigenising” all foreign-owned business interests. He accused the former colonial power, Britain, and other foreign interests of milking his country and denying its African inhabitants their birthright.

Rio Tinto, Anglo-American and Lonmin are among the British-American concerns which could see their assets in Zimbabwe confiscated. They mine copper, gold, asbestos and iron in the mineral-rich country. The world’s two largest platinum miners, Anglo Platinum and Impala Platinum, who have multi-million dollar investments in Zimbabwe, have also expressed concern at the new “indigenisation” legislation.

Mugabe said that after redistributing farmland confiscated from whites - ostensibly to benefit landless blacks but in reality to enrich himself and his supporters beyond their wildest dreams - his next goal was the “Africanisation” of the rest of the economy.

He singled out the mining sector for “aggressive indigenisation”. Speaking in a  speech peppered with hardline demagoguery, Mugabe slammed Britain and the US for “threatening to occupy smaller and weaker nations which are seeking to assert sovereignty over their resources for the betterment of their own people”.

“There must be Africans in there, as owners, not just as workers,” he thundered  to the G15, a group of 17 developing countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, set up to foster cooperation and provide input for other international groups.

“We are gold, copper, asbestos and iron producers. But most of the benefits are enjoyed by the former colonialists. At the end of the day, black people must be able to say, the resources are ours - our people own the mines, our people own the industry.”

Political analysts who have been critical of Mugabe’s rule warned him sternly against his plans. “This cannot help Zimbabwean jobs, wealth and opportunities,” said political commentator Ronald Shumba.

International mining giant Anglo American, which has significant interests in Zimbabwe, said this week it had discussed its operations with the Zimbabwe government but said that respect for the rule of law was of “prime concern to us and other investors”.

His Indigenisation minister, Savior Kasukuwere, insists he is plodding ahead with indigenisation plans, which took effect on March 1 - forcing foreign-owned companies to submit plans to show how they will sell 51 percent of their shares to black Zimbabweans within five years.

International jitters about Zimbabwe’s economy in the wake of planned expropriations can be expected to turn to full-blown panic at Mugabe’s latest position.

This is the umpteenth time he has said he would Africanise the mining sector. And his tone suggests there may be nothing that can sway him.

The MDC has accused him of trying to buy votes with a plan that could lead to economic disaster. Observers describe it as a desperate move by a desperate party that will do anything to stay in power.

Mining accounts for about 8 percent of Zimbabwe’s GDP, generating about 40 percent of annual export earnings. At its peak, Zimbabwe produced 28 tonnes of gold, raising nearly US$450m. Other mines extract coal, copper, nickel, chrome, asbestos and iron ore.

By setting his sights beyond land reform, Mugabe appears to be following the well-trodden - but discredited - path of Africanisers such as Uganda’s Idi Amin and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire.

Amin’s deportation of about 50,000 UK passport-holding South Asians in 1972 failed to bring promised prosperity, and saw the collapse of the commercial sector.

Meanwhile, the economic outcome of Mobutism was the wholesale plunder of Congo’s resources by the ruling elite.

(Source)

Taking photographs can be a high-risk occupation in Zimbabwe for journalists [and sometimes for other people, including tourists]. Last month a freelance photojournalist was arrested outside Harare magistrates court for taking photographs of arriving prisoners without the permission of the Commissioner of Prisons, and, although this is not against the law, he was detained, questioned by the police and charged with disorderly conduct. This raises the question: “In what circumstances can journalists and other people take photographs in Zimbabwe?”

The Legal Position

The general rule is that everyone is free to take photographs of anything and anyone they like, except where the law specifically forbids photographs to be taken. This is one aspect of freedom of expression, which is protected by the Constitution and which includes freedom to receive and impart ideas and information. This freedom as spelt out in the Declaration of Rights [section 20] can only be limited in certain circumstances, by a law passed in order to protect:

• the interests of defence, public safety, public order, the economic interests of the State, public morality or public health; or
• the reputations, rights and freedoms of other people, or the private lives of people concerned in legal proceedings; or
• the authority and independence of courts or tribunals or Parliament.

And any such law must be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. There are several laws that prohibit or restrict the taking of photographs in Zimbabwe. By listing them here we are not implying that they comply with section 20 of the Constitution – even some of the following provisions could be open to a constitutional challenge.

Laws Prohibiting or Restricting Taking Photographs

Defence Act: Under section 94 of the Defence Act, the Minister of Defence has the power to declare any area to be a protected area and to give directions banning the taking of photographs within the area [but not of the area from outside it]. Although section 94 is couched in extremely wide terms, it probably covers only defence installations. Taking photographs in contravention of section 94 attracts a fine of US $200 or six months’ imprisonment or both. Various areas were declared to be protected before Independence, but none have been since. The pre-Independence declarations have never been repealed.

Electoral Regulations: Under section 25 of the Electoral Regulations, 2005, it is a criminal offence to take a photograph of anyone inside a polling booth, or to take a photograph within a polling-station without permission from the officer in charge of the station. Anyone who contravenes the section is liable to a fine of US $700 or a year’s imprisonment or both. There is nothing wrong, however, with taking photographs of the outside of polling stations.

Official Secrets Act: Under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act anyone who takes a photograph which is calculated or intended to be, or which might be, useful to an enemy of Zimbabwe is guilty of espionage and liable to imprisonment for up to 25 years, if he or she takes the photograph for a purpose prejudicial to Zimbabwe’s safety or interests. Section 3 of the Act is couched in very broad terms and could afford a pretext for the arrest of anyone who tried to photograph defence installations and other places believed to be of strategic importance.

Prisons (General) Regulations: Under section 168 of the Prisons (General) Regulations, 1996, it is an offence to take photographs inside a prison unless the Commissioner of Prisons consents. A contravention of the section attracts a year’s imprisonment. Taking photographs of the outside of a prison, on the other hand, seems to be perfectly all right — unless the photographer loiters when taking it, in which event he or she may be arrested and charged with loitering within 100 metres of a prison and failing to move on when requested to do so, in contravention of section 85 of the Prisons Act. If found guilty of that crime, the photographer is liable to a fine of US $100 or three months’ imprisonment or both.

Protected Places and Areas Act: If premises are declared to be a protected place, the declaration usually includes prohibitions or restrictions on taking photographs on the premises [section 4(5) of the Act]. Anyone who takes a photograph in contravention of such a provision risks a fine of US $400 or two years’ imprisonment or both. Similarly, if an area is declared to be a protected area the taking of photographs within the area is usually prohibited [section 5 of the Act], and anyone doing so is liable to the same penalty. Note that the Act does not make it an offence to take photographs of a protected place or area, merely within the place or area. The following places and areas are listed in the Index to Legislation as being protected under the Act: the Aurex Factory, Goromonzi; the Beitbridge border-post; the “Chimanimani Restricted/Reserved Area” [presumably the Marange diamond fields]; the Zimbabwe Defence Industries factories in Domboshawa; Fidelity Printers and Refinery in Harare; an underground fuel depot in Mabvuku; a fuel depot in Masasa; the National Heroes Acre; the Presidential retirement home in Borrowdale, Harare; the environs of State House, Harare; and the Wilton Pipe Station.

Other Situations Where Photography is Restricted

Parliament: Taking photographs of the proceedings of the Senate or the House of Assembly is considered to be contempt of Parliament unless permission has been obtained from the President of the Senate or the Speaker. Although not stated specifically in the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act or in Parliamentary Standing Orders, it is established practice of both Houses to prohibit visitors from filming or taking photographs of their proceedings. The prohibition does not extend to taking photographs outside the Parliament building.

Court proceedings: Similarly, filming or taking photographs of court proceedings without permission from the presiding judge or magistrate amounts to contempt of court and is punishable as such. So far as is known, no court in Zimbabwe has ever given permission for criminal or civil proceedings to be filmed or photographed [apart from the ceremonial opening of High Court sessions] and no court is likely to give such permission in future. Again, there is no prohibition against photographing the outside of court buildings.

Parties to criminal and civil proceedings: If a court has prohibited disclosure of the identity of a party or witness to criminal or civil proceedings, then it would be unlawful, and punishable as contempt of court, for a journalist to photograph the party or witness entering or coming from the court in connection with the proceedings.

In All Other Situations

In all other cases journalists and other people can generally take photographs of what and of whom they choose. It is not necessary to get the consent of a person before taking his or her photograph; if the person objects to having the photograph published, he or she can take civil proceedings to prevent publication but cannot normally invoke the assistance of the police to prevent the photograph being taken. The police can become involved only if taking the photograph:

• seriously impairs the dignity of the person concerned or seriously invades his or her privacy, in which event it will amount to criminal insult, which is punishable by a fine of US $300 or a year’s imprisonment or both; or
• amounts to intentionally engaging in disorderly or riotous conduct in a public place, in which case it will amount to disorderly conduct in a public place, a crime punishable by a fine of US $200 or six months’ imprisonment or both.

In some other cases people can be prevented from taking photographs and the police may be called on for assistance. For example, if a person enters private land or premises in order to take a photograph, he or she can be told to leave and, if he or she does not do so, will be guilty of criminal trespass and liable to a fine of US $200 or six months’ imprisonment or both [section 132 of the Criminal Law Code]. The police may be called upon to eject the person from the premises. But in such a case the essence of the crime would be failing to leave the premises rather than taking photographs. Much the same applies if a person takes photographs of a meeting such as a company meeting without permission from the person presiding: he or she may be asked to leave and may be ejected if he or she refuses.

Legitimate Law Enforcement or Police Harassment of a Photo Journalist

To return to the story of the freelance photojournalist. On March 1st he was apprehended and detained by prison officials at the Harare magistrates court for taking photographs of prisoners without the permission of the Commissioner of Prisons. He was later handed to the police who detained and questioned him. There is no law in Zimbabwe that prohibits filming outside courthouses, nor one that requires journalists to seek permission from the Commissioner of Prisons before performing their duties, so the police could not charge him for taking photographs. They eventually charged him with disorderly conduct and he paid the fine rather than spending the night in the cells, but his lawyer is contesting that charge as spurious. [Note: the prisoners he photographed were a group of alleged coup plotters being brought to court to face charges of attempting to escape from Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison and the photojournalist was pursuing his legitimate professional job covering a case of public interest.]

On January 18 this year, the same photojournalist, Andrisson Manyere, was arrested and detained by the police for two hours for filming a public protest march in Harare by members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise [WOZA]. He was released without charge. The following month a group of ZANU-PF youths unlawfully apprehended and detained him for filming the youths’ public protest against sanctions on the ZANU-PF leadership. The youths handed Manyere over to State security agents who, unlawfully, forced him to delete all footage in his camera before they released him.

Previously, State security agents seized Manyere at his home in Norton on December 13, 2008. Without search warrants or any legal justification, they raided his house and confiscated his work equipment, including a camera and two laptops, which have never been returned to him. While in police custody, Manyere was threatened with death and accused of taking and sending images of victims of human rights abuses to international media. Manyere was charged with banditry, sabotage and terrorism, together with other abductees [see previous Peace Watches] and kept in Chikurubi maximum security prison for months, and was only finally released on bail on 13th May, 2009. His case is pending before the courts. His lawyer has said he was tortured and that during his incarceration his rights to legal representation, a fair trial, and security of person were violated; he has brought a civil case claiming damages against the State but a court date has not been set.

Meantime he is trying to earn a living following his profession and is having to replace the equipment which has not been returned to him. His constantly being arrested is making this difficult and is also causing a lot of suffering to himself, his wife and children, who each time he is arrested fear the worst.

Conclusion

Any limitation on peoples’ constitutional rights and freedoms must be in accordance with the law. A person should not be stopped from taking a photograph unless there is a given law that prohibits him or her from doing so. And the law must comply with section 20 of the Constitution. The police’s duty is to uphold the law, not to act outside the parameters of the law.

(Source)

In Saturday’s National Post, Peter Goodspeed profiles Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe, 30 years after he first took power.

Here, a look at the man who’s been called Zimbabwe’s “kleptocrat-for-life,” and Africa’s “Hitler” (by himself), in quotes.

• “I am still the Hitler of the time… This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources… If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold… Ten times, that is what we stand for.”

• On homosexuality, which he’s described as “unAfrican”: “Leave whites to do that.”

• On the UK’s approach to his land reforms: “They are even using gay gangsters on us.”

• On George W Bush: “The inclusive government does not include Mr Bush and his administration. It doesn’t even know him. It has no relationship with him, so let him keep his comments, they are undesired, irrelevant, quite stupid and foolish… We realize these are the last kicks of a dying horse. We obviously are not going to pay attention.”

• “Only God, who appointed me, will remove me - not the MDC, not the British. Only God will remove me!”

• “Cricket civilizes people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen.”

• On why police were present in voting stations during the 2008 elections: “assist illiterate and disabled voters.”

• “It doesn’t matter what happens, Zimbabwe is my country.”

• “Who said the British and the Americans should rule over others? That’s why we say down with you. We have not invited these bloody whites. They want to poke their nose into our own affairs. Refuse that.”

(Source)

The recent hint by octogenarian President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, that he will, again, contest the country’s presidential election billed for next year deserves the condemnation it is currently attracting across the globe. No right thinking person would accept Mugabe’s further imposition of himself on the hunger-ravaged Zimbabwe.

Mugabe, in a session with editors of various media organizations at Zimbabwe House declared that he will contest the next election if his party, ZANU-PF fields him. The disclosure, apart from raising the political temperature in Zimbawe, has, rightly, sent shock waves across political circles around the world.

Two reasons informed that. First, it is unthinkable that Mugabe, who is currently 86 years would still be desperate to hang onto power. Second, one would have thought that the man, inspite of his thirst for power, would have been persuaded by the grim realities in the country presently to tell himself the bitter truth that it is time to sign off.

The planned election is in conformity with the Global Political Agreement between the ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC, represented by Morgan Tsvangirai. The opposition favours the decision to hold a new election. But the move is a violation of a section of the agreement which recommended that a new constitution should be in place before the election.

Tsvangirai became Prime Minister following a power-sharing agreement between ZANU-PF and MDC, brokered by former South African President, Thabo Mbeki on September 15,2008 after the public outcry that trailed the election of that year in the country. The Prime Minister recently voiced his frustrations in the government, accusing Mugabe of emasculating the opposition.

We are not against Zimbabwe holding election next year, but we are wholly opposed to Mugabe offering himself as a contestant in the exercise. Apart from the issue of age, the man’s participation will definitely cause the election to follow the ignoble path of the recent past exercises in the country.

Knowing full well that he may not win in a free and fair contest, Mugabe will most likely employ all manner of untoward strategies, including openly manipulating the electoral processes so as to hold onto power. He did exactly that in 2008 and that led to loss of thousands of lives of innocent indigenes of the country who were on the streets protesting the outcome of the poll.

Zimbabwe is yet to recover from the fall out of that election. The stories that emanate from the country on a daily basis have remained heart- wrenching and unbelievable. There is hyper inflation and people are dying of starvation as a result of food shortages, massive internal displacement and emigration, pitiable health care situation, collapse of infrastructure and indeed unmitigated downward spiral in Zimbabwe’s economy.

The power sharing deal was brokered as a desperate bid to use Tsvangirai to reach out to Britain and other western powers to relax the sanctions imposed on the country. The calculation had shown some promises at the initial time. But collapsed following Mugabe’s decision not to respect some sections of the agreement especially areas that deal with control of the police and other security institutions.

The non-lifting of sanctions by western nations has been, largely, responsible for the worsening economic hardship in Zimbabwe. Mugabe contesting next year’s poll means that the parlous situation in the country will remain. This, obviously, cannot be in the interest of residents of the country. It can also not be the wish of most people on the African continent and even beyond.

It is time for Mugabe to go, at least, in the overall interest of the country. He has spent more than his fair share of time in office and his place is secured in history. The man should know that willingly giving others a chance will tremendously burnish his presently uninspiring political image.

Zimbabweans deserve to see their country wear a new face. They deserve a new era with new leadership and with investors returning to their country and opening doors of employment for the teeming jobless youths. This cannot happen unless a new person with fresh ideas is voted in by the people.

We urge African leaders and the international community to step up pressure on Mugabe to give way for an acceptable government to be enthroned in Zimbabwe next year. Only then can the current drift in the country, which has led to increased hardship, be arrested.

(Source)

People who attended on Friday gathered in Bulawayo to celebrate President Robert Mugabe’s birthday said they only attended the event because of its low price and huge number of artistes including Jamaican reggae guru Sizzla Kalonji.

Tickets for the music showcase held at the ZITF were going for a mere US$2 advance and US$3 at the gate.

One fan who attended the show said: “Where can you watch an international artiste like Sizzla for a mere US$3? This is a one time opportunity that will probably never happen.

“That is why I came here, I am not here to celebrate Mugabe’s birthday but to take advantage of the presence of these musicians,” said the fan, who refused to be named.

A crowd estimated to be between 5000 and 7000 attended the show where more than 30 musicians and dance groups took to the stage including the likes of urban groover, Rocqui, Sebede, Bob Nyabinde, Cephas Machakada, Sandra Ndebele, Chase Skuza, IYASA, Charles Charamba, Soul Brothers and Sizzla among others.

A man who identified himself as Steven Moyo said getting to watch all those musicians at one show was worth going there.

“I would never celebrate that man’s (Mugabe) birthday after all what he has done to us Zimbabweans,” he said.

Most people seem to have gone there to watch Sizzla as he is the artiste who received the biggest response from the audience and most people started streaming out immediately after he had performed at about 3 am.

Mugabe’s birthday celebrations are estimated to have cost about $500,000 and come in the backdrop of the country facing starvation owing to crop failure due to drought.

Many have criticised the lavish celebrations as a waste of money and should be dedicated to better causes such as feeding the hungry or helping to revive the ailing economy.

(Source)

Last week’s issue of The Zimbabwean, which is edited from Britain, leads with a report on the possible exchange of Chinese weapons for illegally mined diamonds in Zimbabwe (see below).

If the information in this report is proved correct, it would indicate that the Mugabe regime is preparing a bloody coup to preserve itself in office, in defiance of its loss of the general election last year, its subsequent power-sharing deal with the Movement for Democratic Change, the Kimberley Process which regulates the global gem trade and a ruling of the High Court in Harare.

The report suggests that the Mugabe regime - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of independent miners when it sent the army to seize the diamond fields at Chiadzwa in November 2008 - intends to exchange “blood diamonds” for weapons from China . The report indicates that a runway suitable for this kind of traffic has already been constructed in the diamond fields and is almost ready for use.

If the report is proved correct, it would indicate a qualitative escalation of Chinese intervention in Africa.

Armament of a resurgent Mugabe dictatorship by China , in defiance of the power-sharing agreement, would represent the initiation of a new Cold War in Africa , at a time when the United States and Britain are tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq , and handicapped by a massive sovereign debt crisis.

Such a development would have immediate and immensely grave implications for South Africa , and would represent a military-political destabilisation of the entire region.

Construction of a mile-long runway at Chiadzwa would further present a direct challenge to COSATU, which organised a boycott by dockers in South Africa three years ago of Chinese arms shipments to Mugabe. - Paul Trewhela

HARARE - A mile-long runway capable of accommodating massive, long range cargo jets is being built in the Chiadzwa diamond fields in Zimbabwe, according to a British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.

Aerial pictures published in the newspaper show that construction work is well under way, with a newly built control tower apparently complete and the runway nearly ready for surfacing. The images also show what appears to be a tented army camp in the diamond fields, which would be in violation of Zimbabwean court orders and of an undertaking to the Kimberley Process, which was set up to prevent “blood diamonds” from conflict zones entering the global gem trade.

The paper quoted diplomats and analysts saying the runway was probably intended for arms shipments, probably from China , for which troops loyal to President Robert Mugabe would pay on the spot with diamonds. There are other airfields within a short distance of the mining area, and no obvious need for a runway long enough for transport planes to take off and land even closer to the mines. A Western diplomat said the existence of the runway, out of sight except from the air, was “extremely” worrying.

One of the mining companies involved in the development says that it is building the runway in order to comply with Kimberley Process rules that diamonds be transported in the most secure way possible, and that a private contractor is responsible for security. The Daily Telegraph article gave no explanation as to why such a long runway was needed.

According to human rights groups, hundreds of independent miners were killed when soldiers seized control of the Chiadzwa area in November 2008, since. Since then others have been compelled to work for only a fraction of the value of the diamonds they unearth. Officers use the proceeds from their sale to enhance their meagre pay - a ploy encouraged by Mugabe’s henchmen to help ensure the army’s continued loyalty.

But the construction of the runway suggests that the army wants to use its access to the raw diamonds - whose production is worth an estimated £125 million a month - to obtain goods from abroad, in particular weapons.

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has been briefed about the continued presence of the army at the diamond fields and the construction of the secret runway. A party insider said: “We know about it and it is extremely sensitive. We are very worried about what we have found out this week.”

China has long been Zimbabwe ’s main source of arms, but delivery has been more difficult since a shipment was blocked in South Africa three years ago. Other deliveries have come in through Beira in Mozambique , but government officials in Maputo , have expressed concern over the issue.

The army has also been frustrated in its attempts to buy weapons by finance minister, Tendai Biti, a member of the MDC, who has blocked new arms purchases since taking control of the treasury under last year’s power-sharing deal.

The new facility would give the Joint Operations Command, the military top brass who long swore they would never recognise Tsvangirai’s authority, a way to obtain weapons independently.

A Western diplomat claimed the head of the armed forces, Constantine Chiwenga, had been “very busy” with the Chinese recently, adding: “We are concerned he is buying weapons.”

A senior political source, who has seen the pictures, said: “ZANU PF believes these diamond fields will allow it to continue to defy outstanding issues of the political agreement.

“It only went into the inclusive government because it lost the elections but it has no intention of fulfilling the political agreement, and wants to go it alone. It needs an income to ensure loyalty among soldiers and other security forces.”

The diamond fields could be worth billions of pounds and make a vital contribution to rebuilding a country brought to ruin by Mugabe’s economic mismanagement.

Tens of millions of pounds worth of gems are smuggled into nearby Mozambique each month, mostly with the connivance of the army and police, to be bought by dealers from Lebanon , Belgium , Iraq , Mauritania and the Balkans.

The mines, whose rough diamonds have a characteristic and unappealing grey appearance, cover an area of 10 square miles. A British company, African Consolidated Resources (ACR), has a legal claim to them under a deal struck originally with the Zimbabwean government, but in 2006 the Mugabe regime went back on the agreement and declared the mines open to all comers.

Defence minister, Emmerson Mnangagwa, denied any knowledge of the runway under construction in the area. “Ask the mining ministry or home affairs, they might know about it”, he said.

The mining minister, Obert Mpofu, also a member of Mugabe’s party, said he was on holiday and therefore could not comment.

The government insists the army has withdrawn from the mining concession area and the mines are now being run by the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC), ignoring a high court order granting that right to ACR.

(Source)