The Elephant in the Room: Reforming Zimbabwe’s Security Sector Ahead of Elections: Part 2

A report by Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.

V. Zimbabwe’s Security Sector Legal Framework

Zimbabwe’s Global Political Agreement (GPA), the Lancaster House Constitution of 1979, the new constitution, and a number of laws prescribe the conduct of security forces, explicitly prohibiting partisan conduct. The army and police have regulations and disciplinary measures, indicated below, on dealing with members of the security forces that violate regulations on partisan political conduct.

The parties to the GPA, ZANU-PF and the two MDC factions, agreed that state organs (including the security sector) and institutions should not belong to any political party and should be impartial and non-partisan in the discharge of their duties. Article 13 of the GPA seeks to ensure that all state organs and institutions perform their duties ethically and professionally in conformity with the principles and requirements of a multi-party democratic system in which all parties are treated equally. The article provides that:

(a) There be inclusion in the training curriculum of members of the uniformed forces subjects on human rights, international humanitarian law and statute law so that there is greater understanding and full appreciation of their roles and duties in a multi-party democratic system;

(b) All state organs and institutions strictly observe the principles of the rule of law and remain non-partisan and impartial;

(c) Laws and regulations governing state organs and institutions are strictly adhered to and those violating them be penalized without fear of favor; and

(d) Recruitment policies and practices be conducted in a manner that ensures that no political or other form of favoritism is practiced.

The new constitution approved in the March 16 referendum and signed into law on May 22, provides that no member of the security services may, in the exercise of their functions, act in a partisan manner or further the interests of any political party or cause. In March 2009, the unity government set up the National Security Council (NSC) comprising top government officials from all three political parties in government and all heads of Zimbabwe’s security sector to provide civilian oversight on the security sector. Key functions of the NSC, which is required to meet at least once each month, included reviewing national policies on security, defense and law and order as well as ensuring that all operations of the security forces comply with the constitution and other laws.

The Zimbabwe Defense Forces regulations instituted in 1988 strictly prohibit partisan conduct or participation in party politics. Statutory Instrument 152 of 1988, Defense (Regular Force) (Officers) Regulations, section 90 provides:

Active participation in politics:

(1) No officer shall commit any act which is prescribed by the section as being an act constituting active participation in politics –

(a) Canvassing any person in support of or otherwise actively assisting an organization or movement of a political character;

(b) Displaying or wearing rosettes, favors, symbols, posters, placards or like articles having a political significance;

(c) Attending a political meeting or assembly when wearing a uniform of the Defense Forces or any part thereof likely to identify him with the Defense Forces: provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to an officer who attends such a meeting or assembly in uniform in the course of his duties;

(d) Publishing views of a political character or causing them to be published in speeches, broadcasts, letters to the press, articles, leaflets, posters placards, books or otherwise.

Similarly for the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), article 48 of the schedule to the Police Act provides:

(1) Actively participating in politics. (2) Without derogation from the generality of subparagraph (1), a Regular Force member shall be deemed to be actively participating in politics if he— (a) joins or associates himself with an organization or movement of a political character; or (b) canvasses any person in support of, or otherwise actively assists, an organization or movement of a political character; or (c) displays or wears rosettes, favors, clothing, symbols, posters, placards or like articles having a political significance; or (d) attends a political meeting or assembly when wearing the uniform of the Police Force or any part of such uniform likely to identify him as a Regular Force member.

Within Zimbabwe’s security forces, it is the CIO alone, the intelligence service, that has no legislative framework guiding its institutional set up and operations. Although it is a department within the President’s Office—the Department for State Security—with a minister responsible for it, and a director-general in charge of it, there is little information available on its functions. In practice, the CIO has operated more as a ZANU-PF intelligence agency and has been implicated in serious human rights abuses against ZANU-PF’s political opponents and civil society activists including torture, beatings, harassment and enforced disappearances.

The National Security Council (NSC) has not had any impact on Zimbabwe’s security sector as the body has remained dysfunctional owing to infrequent meetings. Instead, the Joint Operations Command (JOC), comprising Mugabe and the heads of the security forces, but without representation from the MDC leaders, continues to meet to discuss and decide on national security issues from a ZANU-PF perspective.

Existing national laws and regulations, if complied with, seem sufficient to ensure non-partisanship, independence and professionalism within the security forces. However, as indicated, and demonstrated elsewhere in this report, these laws and regulations are ignored with impunity at the highest level within the security forces. It is for these same reasons that the new constitution is unlikely to reform the security sector or create an environment conducive for the holding of credible, free and fair elections.

Without personnel changes within the partisan leadership of Zimbabwe’s security forces, any new laws prescribing security sector changes are likely to be similarly ignored. Reforming the security forces will need to go beyond the legal framework to replacing the current pro ZANU-PF leadership with independent people. As security expert Dr. Maxwell Shumba explained:

The kind of reform urgently needed for Zimbabwe’s security sector is not a complex process as the bulk of the army and police are professional, independent and non-partisan; reform must target leadership of the army and the police which is highly partisan.

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Zimbabwe is party, states that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without discrimination because of political opinion or other unreasonable restrictions, “To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials provides that, “In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.”

International standards relevant to the conduct of security forces are enshrined in the UN International Code of Conduct for Public Officials, which provides:

1. A public office, as defined by national law, is a position of trust, implying a duty to act in the public interest. Therefore, the ultimate loyalty of public officials shall be to the public interests of their country as expressed through the democratic institutions of government.

2. Public officials shall ensure that they perform their duties and functions efficiently, effectively and with integrity, in accordance with laws or administrative policies.

3. Public officials shall be attentive, fair and impartial in the performance of their functions and, in particular, in their relations with the public. They shall at no time afford any undue preferential treatment to any group or individual or improperly discriminate against any group or individual, or otherwise abuse the power and authority vested in them. …

11. The political or other activity of public officials outside the scope of their office shall, in accordance with laws and administrative policies, not be such as to impair public confidence in the impartial performance of their functions and duties.

Part 3 will look at Security Sector Political Interference……………………….