Mnangagwa must tell us who healed Gukurahundi wounds?
By Pedzisai Ruhanya
The misguided notion by Defence minister Emmerson Mnangagwa — who was Minister of State Security in the 1980s when Zimbabwe experienced gruesome human rights violations during the infamous Gukurahundi massacres in the Matabeleland and Midlands provinces — that Zimbabweans should not discuss this disastrous episode in post-Independence Zimbabwe needs to be interrogated.
In an interview with the Herald this week, Mnangagwa, who was at the helm of the dreaded Central Intelligence Organisation during the killings, sought to silence Zimbabweans, including victims, from discussing the crimes against humanity and genocide committed by the Zanu PF regime and its surrogate security apparatus.
In his wisdom or lack of it, Mnangagwa said the 1987 Unity Accord between PF ZAPU and Zanu PF bought justice to those who were affected by the campaign in which at least 20 000 citizens of this country were killed.
Mnangagwa did not tell Zimbabweans, especially the victims and their relatives, how, where, when and who healed the wounds of Gukurahundi? He needs to hear from the victims whether they were healed and whether their wounds are old — as he claims — before talking. He should not try to silence the people. Truth and justice, not arbitrary declarations and intimidation, will bring closure to this monumental national disaster committed under the rule of Mnangagwa’s Zanu PF.
It is misleading and even delusional for Mnangagwa and Zanu PF to attempt to lay the blame for this issue on civil society organisations, the private media and the opposition. Whatever Mnangagwa says, the massacres are a political and living reality that needs to be confronted and addressed, not denied. By denying the problem and trying to silence people, Mnangagwa is promoting a culture of impunity which is already rampant.
For now those responsible can run and hide beyond the reach of the justice system but domestic and international human rights laws will catch up with them one day.
There was no transitional justice mechanisms put in place to handle the grievances of those whose fundamental civil and political liberties, including the right to life, were violated by the state. I will attempt to take Mnangagwa and all those in denial of Gukurahundi massacres through what transitional justice entails and means.
As the country struggles to extricate itself from three decades of President Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF’s dictatorship associated with gross human rights violations, the inclusive government should deliver justice to victims of this repression by this de facto police state.
International law requiring punishment of such crimes and international pressure for compliance can provide important mechanisms to compel Zimbabwe’s ruling elite responsible for the Matabeleland and Midlands massacres, the June 2008 burning to death of opposition activists at Jerera growth point in Masvingo province and other heinous criminal activities the country has witnessed to act on these issues.
When prosecutions are administered and undertaken pursuant to the provisions of international law forbidding acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes, they are less likely to be perceived or opposed as acts of revenge.
It is easy to believe that prosecutions that come after the fall of a dictatorship are politically-motivated. When a decision to institute them is a matter of unbridled discretion, justice is readily mistaken for vengeance, hence the need to deliver justice to Zimbabweans under strict provisions of international law such as the provisions of the Convention Against Torture and some aspects of domestic law which forbid torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of citizens.
It has been mistakenly argued that amnesty laws may be necessary to amend social divisions but in my view amnesty laws are not the only way of achieving reconciliation in troubled countries such as Zimbabwe where the rule of law has been sacrificed in pursuit of power and influence.
There should be other means to pursue reconciliation in Zimbabwe without allowing impunity to be celebrated as Mnangagwa attempts to do. Amnesty laws can be used to promote reconciliation provided they do not cover crimes which domestic and international laws require states to punish.
Mnangagwa, who says he is a lawyer, should appreciate that international human rights law require states to punish certain crimes committed in their territorial jurisdiction. Zimbabwe under the Zanu PF dictatorship should be no exception and amnesty laws should not be invoked to cover up years of rampant human rights abuses in the country.
Several human rights treaties which form part of international law such as the Convention Against Torture to which Zimbabwe is a party, as well as the United Nations Charter itself require states parties to promote and protect human rights by criminalising particular abuses such as genocide and torture and punishing wrongdoers. These treaties make it clear that a state party fails in its duty if it does not investigate violations and seek to punish those responsible.
It is important for the country to exorcise the ghosts of the Zanu PF administration by laying bare the atrocities associated with it through a proper and independent investigation and the prosecution of serious crimes against humanity to the fullest extent so that future generations will not be haunted. The rich, poor, powerful and weak should be equal before the law but this cannot happen when there are elements in the security forces and the ruling elite who think they can continue to get away with murder and other crimes against humanity.
Zimbabwe needs its leadership across the political divide to be accountable for their misdeeds in order to create a law-abiding culture. It is important to have such critical, complex and in some respects controversial decisions in order for future political leaders in Zimbabwe to respect the call to act responsibly when they are in power.
More so, that kind of accountability will force the political players, especially those in Mnangagwa’s Zanu PF party, to instill in their supporters a culture of respect for the rule of law, allow the security forces to observe their constitutional obligations and desist from operating like militias and political commissars of repressive political parties.
Beyond taking criminal proceedings against human rights violators in this country in order to promote reconciliation, not the one Mugabe promoted in 1980 which was not statute based but rhetorical, a truth commission which strives to investigate past human rights abuses provides an official forum where victims of abuses and perpetrators alike can tell their stories and offer evidence for an authoritative report that documents the events, makes conclusions and suggests ways in which similar atrocities can be avoided in future.
The findings and recommendations of such a body should be made public. This is because the leadership in Zimbabwe usually keeps findings of commissions like the Dumbutshena and Chihambakwe commissions into the Matabeleland and Midlands disturbances secret.
Such a truth commission should make recommendations for reparations to be given to the victims of state organised murders, violence and abuses which must take the form of cash payments, pensions, free education, free access to health care and psychiatric treatment, and public memorials and national remembrance days. But beyond that, efforts should be made to seek compensation from the perpetrators such as senior government, ruling party and security forces rather than relying on the government alone.
Even if amnesty could be exercised, like in the case of South Africa, it should not be unconditional. In order to foster a democratic society, no person should be given amnesty unless he or she applies for it, makes a full disclosure of the crimes, and establishes that the crimes were committed with a political objective. In this regard wrongdoers and hardliners who fail to follow this course should be prosecuted.
International human rights law and international humanitarian law demand that people responsible for gross violation of human rights be held accountable for their crimes. For this reason the granting of unconditional, blanket amnesty would be unacceptable and should be avoided in Zimbabwe.
For amnesty to be legally valid in any given post-conflict society it must be adopted by democratic bodies. In the case of Zimbabwe, parliament should be allowed to exercise that role. Self-established amnesty by a lawless government such as the one in Zimbabwe which is a critical actor in allegations of human rights violations would not be valid.
If Zimbabwe is to return to democratic legitimacy, the government should further respond to human rights violations by adopting laws which bar certain categories of former government officials and party members from public employment. A successful transition to democracy demands the removal from public institutions of individuals who may have taken part in violating human rights. There are such elements in the country’s public service, particularly in the security forces.
As things stand now Zimbabwe has registered a false start because some of the people who have been spearheading political violence, murders and enforced disappearances since the 1980s remain critical players in the government.
Pedzisai Ruhanya is a human rights researcher
