Zimbabwe: Zim Rights Commission: Case of Too Little Too Late

Source from:  Zimbabwe Standard (Harare) April 2, 2006 04/10/2006

FOR long the human rights situation in Zimbabwe has been a topical issue. But recent human rights violations had no precedence other than the deliberately sidelined issue of the massacre in Matabeleland and parts of the Midlands during the first decade of independence. The establishment of the Zimbabwe Human Commission, though late, could be the only good thing to happen in the year we are celebrating our Independence Silver Jubilee. I say so because so much happened in the year April 2005 - April 2006. Of all the ills we witnessed in the year, the worst is arguably the highest inflation rate on earth, continual shortages of basic necessities and foreign currency, a collapsed health delivery system, rising unemployment and deepening poverty, and our own man-made tsunami, "Operation Murambatsvina". Nevertheless, even amid man-made disasters, God showed his mercy by giving us rains in abundance, but we could not grow enough to feed ourselves. We are expecting about 700 000 tonnes of grain when we need 1.8million, and we are expecting to sell only 50 million tonnes of tobacco when in 2000 we sold 270 million. It was therefore no surprise that at the most recent meeting of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in Banjul, Gambia in December 2005, the government failed to defend itself as one of the chief perpetrators of human rights violations on the continent. This is the background to the recent announcement by Minister Patrick Chinamasa that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is to be instituted, urgently. Zimbabwe is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other instruments of the world body. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Continentally, Zimbabwe is a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, among others. It is important to note that the average Zimbabwean has little knowledge of these Charters or of the human rights their government has pledged to promote and protect. here are three basic ways through which the state's obligation can be put to test. One is that the State gives periodic reports on the state of human rights in the country. The other one is that the treaty body periodically carries out missions to promote or investigate human rights issues, but only with the consent of the host country. The third one is that complaints can be filed directly by individuals, or groups of individuals to the bodies concerned. A contextual analysis of our situation is that the first option, which is supposed to be done through the office of the Ombudsman, is almost non-existent. How many reports have we seen, and how recent are they? In any case, how many people know where the offices of Beatrice Chanetsa, the current Ombudsman, are located? In fact, the former governor for Mashonaland West Province's name comes quicker than hers when she holds a national public office. The second one; where investigations are carried out, quickly reminds us of the recent visits by two UN envoys, Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka and Jan Egeland. The rest, as they say, is history. t is the third one, where individuals can file complaints directly to these august bodies that prompted Chinamasa to set up the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, for the reason earlier stated. The State media said government's opponents have over the past few years relentlessly waged a campaign to project Zimbabwe as a violator of human rights. Civic bodies and Western governments, they argued, orchestrated these allegations. This is a very familiar argument in Zimbabwe though very shallow. Chinamasa, himself a former lawyer for a civic body in 1974 (the Catholic Justice Commission for the Rhodesia Catholic Bishops' Conference, now Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace Zimbabwe) should not establish this very important commission along such thinking. It will negate the very purpose for its establishment. In fact, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission will derive its strength and relevance more from what it is not, rather than what it is. It should not be an institution set up to hoodwink the local and international community into believing that human rights issues are being adequately dealt with in Zimbabwe. It should not be an institution presided by government appendages whose role will be to please their master. It should not be a monster put up to harangue NGOs involved in human rights work in Zimbabwe. I say this because we do not have a tradition of independent institutions in Zimbabwe. In South Africa they call them Chapter 9 institutions, following their Constitution. Such institutions receive government funding but work totally independent of government influence when dealing with excesses. uman rights issues are serious business because they affect every facet of life - from an HIV infected person who can't access ARVs, to the university student who can't raise fees, to the one denied food because she doesn't have a party card, to the resettled farmer who can't get inputs because she is not well connected, to the teacher who is earning below the poverty datum line, and to the millions facing economic hardships because of unemployment. I was elated when I heard that the Commission will have the mandate to receive, investigate and redress any complaints relating to human rights. I have every reason to, because it is not so much the hatreds, the fears, and the brutalities, which are the social evils of our country. It is the ignorance and deliberate denial of the truth. Even on the rule of law, the argument that "we have the law, and therefore the law is just" has since reached its use-by date. Colleagues in the civil society are already calling for this commission to be relevant. The commission will start with a huge backlog if it is to live up to its mandate state