African Commission adopts strong critical resolution on Zimbabwe

By Tererai Karimakwenda
30 December 2005

The African Commission on Human and People’s Rights adopted a resolution on Zimbabwe at their 38th Ordinary Session which met in Banjul, the Gambia from November to December 2005. Intense lobbying by human rights organizations and individuals who attended the session seems to have paid off. The resolution calls on the Zimbabwe government to comply with recommendations made by the African Commission itself in 2002, as well as those included in reports by the United Nations special envoys who condemned the demolitions of Operation Murambatsvina in 2005. It also calls on the government to allow access to organizations wishing to assist the victims of this operation, and to prosecute those responsible immediately.

Arnold Tsunga, Executive Director of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights described it as one of the most critical resolutions on Zimbabwe by an African institution set up by African Heads of State. And he wondered whether Zimbabwe might be turning the corner. Tsunga assigned much importance to this particular resolution because it came from a group of independent experts who were appointed by the heads of state to make sure member states adhere to standards defined in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. He told us on Friday that if the heads of state appear to be weak or impotent, they could jeopardize their bargaining power with other international institutions.

The Commission said it was deeply concerned by the continued undermining of the independence of the judiciary through defiance of court orders, harassment and intimidation of independent judges and the executive ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts.

Regarding operation Murambatsvina, the Commission was alarmed by the number of internally displaced persons and the violations of fundamental individual and collective rights resulting from the forced evictions being carried out by the government of Zimbabwe.

The African Union was urged to renew the mandate of the African Union Envoy to Zimbabwe to investigate the human rights implications and humanitarian consequences of the mass evictions and demolitions.

As for what’s next, Tsunga said procedurally, the heads of state will have to adopt The Commission’s resolution as their own at the next meeting which is scheduled for the end of January or early February 2006. Once they adopt it, the heads of state will then have to act to pressure Zimbabwe to comply. Asked what options they have, Tsunga said the problem with multilateral institutions is that they don’t have the mandate to force member states to cooperate. They can only rely on the deviant members to accept these resolutions. Tsunga is optimistic that this time the heads of state will act on Zimbabwe as they do not want to be seen as being ineffective and unable to rein in one of their own. The excuse that African states should deal with African problems no longer applies in this case.