Home Blog Page 8038

Military police crush army food brawl

By
admin
-
0

By a correspondent

Military police had to be called in at Masvingo Polytechnic College to quell a brawl for food between soldiers feasting at a ceremony to mark Defence Forces Day.

Our correspondent reports that on Tuesday visibly hungry looking soldiers fought each other in queues for a taste of the free lunch.

Several soldiers traded insults on why some had jumped the queue and before long a brawl erupted. The military police were called in and arrested several junior army officers.

‘It was amazing to see soldiers being bundled into a military police vehicle and sent to detention at the army barracks,’ an eye witness told us.

Out of Masvingo’s 3 military barracks we were not able to identify from which one the soldiers came from. Indiscipline within the armed forces has been on the rise and only last year soldiers rioted in several cities in protest at poor wages.

Dabengwa Wants "Unqualified Apology"

By
admin
-
0

By Denford Magora

Dumiso Dabengwa, the ZAPU leader and former ZAPU Commander, who is being offered the vice-presidency of Zimbabwe by Mugabe, is holding out and repeating his oft-stated demand for an apology from Mugabe over Gukurahundi.

This is one of his two demands. Dabengwa is said to have also demanded that the healing process currently underway encompass Gukurahundi.

You will recall I told you when I broke the story about a Reconciliation Commission that Mugabe had told Tsvangirai that Gukurahundi had “nothing to do” with him and he could only speak for the violence that followed the formation of the MDC.

Very few people are aware of just how mortified Mugabe is over the Matabeleland massacres termed by then Prime Minister Robert Mugabe’s government “Gukurahundi” – the early rains that wash away the chaff”.

The only time Mugabe ever came even close to making a public apology over anything was over the Gukurandi massacres, which he said he “regretted” and called “a moment of madness.”

Back then, it was because Joshua Nkomo, Vice-president and ZAPU President, pestered Mugabe over the matter, explaining in detail to him over months just what was done in the rural areas of Matabeleland, insisting that the people of the region did not want retribution or vengeance, just an acknowledgement of their horrors.

Mugabe is loath to openly and unequivocally accept blame for the 1980s Gukurahundi. Besides it leading (potentially) to a huge number of claims in court from people stripped of their belongings and loved ones, there is also the fact that he considers the unity with ZAPU in 1987 to have settled that issue.

So, Dabengwa, who has made it clear before that Mugabe has to offer an apology, is now using that to try and put The Solution on the spot.

If he wants Dabengwa to be VP bad enough, he will have to face that greatest fear of his.

Or perhaps other ways of persuasion will be found. That can never be discounted. But by all accounts, Mugabe is dead serious about the approach to the ZAPU leader.

Just the fact that the revived ZAPU is being treated now with some respect even in state media also means that Dabengwa has won already. Mugabe and his people recognise Dabengwa’s ZAPU now.

To fully understand the approach to Dabengwa, you should also be aware that right across Matabeleland, whole ZANU PF structures are defecting to Dabengwa’s party. Mugabe knows that the rural constituencies that he used to pick up here and there were coming to him only because he was with ZAPU. Left to their own devices, the people of the region would throw ZANU PF out on its ear.

Mugabe, who is demanding “unity”, meaning Dabengwa would have to disband the ZAPU he revived and come back to the ZANU PF fold, is actually playing his usual game and I hope Dabengwa realises this.

Mugabe’s mode of negotiation is to start off by making outrageous and ridiculous demands on issues he really cares nothing about. He did it with Nelson Chamisa, when he wanted to take back control of Interception of Communications.

Those close to the dictator say he is willing to actually forge a new alliance with Dabengwa’s ZAPU, as a sister party from the liberation wars. The idea, obviously, is to bide his time and eventually swallow them again.

He maintains that he is still “an avowed apostle of the one party state”.

This, I suppose, should also point us to the destination where Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC-T will end up.

“Never!” did they say? We will see.

Joseph Msika's Botched Legacy

By
admin
-
0

By Dr Paul Mutuzu

Contrary to misleading claims and clumsy moralization of Msika’s death by South African President Jacob Zuma, Finance Minister Biti and Robert Mugabe, the death of Msika represents a botched legacy.

Since his appointment in 1999 as Vice-President, he became a co-author of a series of man-made disasters. As one of the leading figures of the monastic establishment, he presided over one of the most ignominious and darkest chapters of Zimbabwe’s history.

By the time of his death, he had become an irrelevant hero and a real danger to the very people he helped liberate, just like Mugabe. The death of Msika has ignited a moral outrage. In the court of public opinion, a verdict has already been reached (quite easily).

Msika was a civil servant who, for 29 years, was sustained by public funds. It is only justifiable for his true masters – the taxpayers, to undertake a moral critique and to take an audit of his performance during his painfully protracted tenure in office.

If the people of Zimbabwe were to arrive at the unlikely conclusion that Msika was simply incompetent, then that would be a mildly acceptable and forgivable excuse. However his record shows that he was not a dim-witted Vice-President nor one who slept at the wheel.

He actively facilitated Mugabe’s overstay in power and in the process he was a direct beneficiary of power himself. He became a senior member of the plutocracy worth millions of dollars. He never acknowledged the people’s misery, With all the suffering he has left behind, his legacy is that of emptiness.

Consider his demeaning statement made in December 2003 that, “All those who talk of succession are bloody sell-outs. There was someone who wanted to bring up the issue here at the conference. We were going to deal with him if he had brought up the issue, Mugabe cannot go …” He fiercely silenced any succession debates. There is no doubt that Msika was a polarizing figure even in his own party.

At a time Zimbabwe was desperate for change, Msika shortchanged the people of Zimbabwe. During a rally in Zaka last year (2008) he said, “Voting for the MDC in the run-off will be like voting for Rhodesia and the British which means voting for war. I will never accept to be ruled by an MDC government that is keen to sell the country’s birthright. I would rather die fighting.’’

Even Msika himself knew that he was lying and was deeply buried in denial. Less than a year later, the unthinkable happened as the very MDC he humiliated for a decade became the trusted government of the day. And the winds of change continue to blow to this present day.

Such dubious characterizations, show that he was referring to a war against the MDC as had previously done because no British forces or foreign armies had invaded Zimbabwe. It was a war that Zimbabweans are well too familiar with – deadly violence against unarmed citizens.

They experienced that war during the 2002 presidential elections which left over five hundred Zimbabweans (mostly MDC supporters) dead while thousands were injured, tortured or abused. Six years later (2008) hundreds of Zimbabweans perished under similar lies and incitements. After all, that violence was state-sponsored.

In spite of isolated incidents and piecemeal efforts to sanitize his name, which clearly contradicted what he conspicuously advocated for, Msika described the land reform ‘chaotic’. Other than that, where was the Vice President when the tsunami of green bombers and rented thugs unleashed violence, death and destruction on the defenseless people of Zimbabwe?

If Msika was a well-intentioned man, why didn’t he resign in protest of Mugabe’s misrule? Men of virtue like Joshua Nkomo offered to resign when Mugabe denied entrepreneur Strive Masiyiwa the license and the right to operate a wireless network. He stood up for justice throughout his life and he will forever be remembered as a true hero.

As someone who was up there in the chain of command, clearly Msika was a veteran demagogue, the magnitude of Mugabe, his boss who in 2005 declared, “let me be a Hitler ten-fold.” Msika relentlessly participated in the regime’s heinous activities which deprived the people of Zimbabwe their basic freedoms and rights.

Msika’s record clearly demonstrates that he did not have the independence of mind to follow his own conscience, no wonder he couldn’t resign even as geriatric disorders took their toll on him. He surrendered his life to Mugabe’s whims and bought the notion that they were irreplaceable. Msika’s lust for power impaired his moral judgment.

When Mugabe says “This is not death, Msika cannot die”, that sounds quite disturbing. If he literally meant that, then we might very well be dealing with a mental case here. Does he think he is immortal. What else can explain his determination to die in office or coercing his Vice President to die office? But seriously, if these people are concerned about Zimbabwe’s posterity and their own their legacies, then they must do the honorable thing now – pack their bags and go, for they have outlived their usefulness.

No one, in his/her right frame of mind needs the current crop of Zanu PF politicians. To the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans, they have become a perennial liability. Most of Zanu PF men and women will regrettably retire to their deathbeds squirming in shame and rejection.

As Zimbabweans try to quickly forget about Msika’s legacy, Mr Biti volunteered himself to be the harbinger of the depressing news that the Vice President was “untainted by corruption” and that “his name stayed away from scandal.” How emotionally troubling!

But for someone who just got a bullet in the mail, it’s understandable. ‘Mugabephobia’ has taken its grip on Mr Biti. However, the irony of Mr Biti’s cosmetic eulogy is that Msika was the co-author of this violence which is hounding the rest of the Zimbabwean populace, Mr Biti included.

For a decade, Msika oversaw the barbaric torture and killing of Zimbabweans but still intentionally hid his head from the horror that terrorized a nation in broad daylight. He goes to his grave with so many unanswered questions yet no one will ever be able to bear testimony better than him. His record is replete with prosecutable human rights violations such as aiding and abetting torture in contravention of Geneva Convention.

It is insulting to the people of Zimbabwe to call such a human being a ‘ true hero’. In any case as Minister of Finance, Mr Biti has no business pontificating about such controversial issues which have nothing to do with the fiscus. These politicians must learn to speak for themselves. It’s not fun. What a shame of a statement purporting to represent all men and women of the MDC!

As if to out-compete each other, from across the Limpopo entered Zuma, calling it a ‘painful loss’. What ‘painful loss?’ Zuma is the president of a country which has become a symbol of Zimbabweans’ desperation caused by the failed leadership of Mugabe and Msika.

No-one will ever forget the burnt corpses of Zimbabweans who perished in xenophobic attacks in Zuma’s backyard. Just last week, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai toured the ‘humanitarian crisis-ridden’ camps holding Zimbabweans in South Africa. It’s despicable.

Zuma must quickly disengage himself from doublespeak and equivocation about Zimbabwe’s desperate situation, Instead of helping Zimbabwe to quickly democratize Zuma is busy wailing over one member of the plutocracy who plundered the nation unabated for as long as he wanted. Is he following the same failed ‘quiet diplomacy’ set by Thabo Mbeki?

He must condemn violations of GPA terms such as appointment of Gono and Tomana. He must condemn the wanton arrest of MDC MP’s by Mugabe and his men. He must condemn lawlessness in Zimbabwe. He must condemn ongoing murders on the farms. Now that is painful!

Mugabe and Msika have an intricately shared legacy. The two are inseparable. The same way no one can talk about the colossal failures of Bush Administration on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the economy without bringing up the names Bush and Cheney together as architects of the disaster. Likewise Bill Clinton and Al Gore are responsible for ‘good ol’ days in America.

According to the most revered book of all time, the Bible, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bears rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2). What an incontestable truth about Zimbabwe.

The people’s definition of heroes has changed. Anybody who is working towards bringing peace, creating jobs, bringing clean water, feeding the hungry, providing for aids patients, eradicating poverty, improving the filthy prisons, fixing schools, universities and hospitals, protecting the environment is the people’s hero in Zimbabwe.

No one should impose heroes on them. Zimbabwe’s liberation war heroes have not guaranteed and safeguarded the real virtues of independence such as peace and prosperity, democracy and the rule of law. In that regard, people like Tonderai Ndira’s stature as national heroes easily dwarf Msika.

Msika and fellow geriatrics like Mugabe, represent a self-imposed leadership utterly disconnected with the present generation and fiercely out of touch with reality. Msika leaves behind a total nightmare for millions of Zimbabweans. Can you imagine the millions scattered across nations who are waiting to go back home as soon as Mugabe is no longer in power?

Many Zimbabweans have publicly wished that this Msika tragedy must have happened to the ‘big fish’ himself. That shows extreme desperation when people cross traditionally designated taboo lines to express their anger. (Even though its a ‘state’ crime to express that anger)

To many Zimbabweans, the conclusion that Mr Msika is yet another relic of a bygone era is inescapable. No matter how much ‘spin the spin doctors spin’ between now and Aug 10, the day marked for Msika’s burial to coincide with Heroes Day, the people will not be convinced. The only prevalent popular sentiment is that there are no more heroes left in Zimbabwe.

Portsmouth push for Benjani return on loan

By
admin
-
0

By Edward Marange

English premiership side Portsmouth FC are in talks with Manchester City about the prospect of getting former player Benjani back on loan with a view to a permanent deal next season.

Benjani was signed by former England manager Sven Goran Eriksson during his stint at City, but a spate of injuries have limited his appearances for the club.

A recent influx of big money signings; Robinho, Carlos Tevez, Emmanuel Adebayor, Craig Bellamy and Roque Santa Cruz has seen Benjani drop down the pecking order.

Portsmouth are in financial dire straits at the moment and are having to sell their top players just to pay wages every month. Pompey manager Paul Hart is eager to get Benjani on loan while the club sort their finances.

The Zimbabwe captain was the fans favourite at Fratton Park owing to his high work rate and calls for him to be brought back have grown louder.

Powerful Men versus Powerful Ideas

By
admin
-
0

By Mutumwa Mawere

To whom should Africa look for economic, political and social salvation?  Are we are own liberators?  What is required for Africa to advance its cause – powerful men/women or ideas?

The enterprise of nation building is a complex one that needs to be informed by certain basic and fundamental foundational principles. Africa’s divisive past has tended to confuse and distort its present and future possibilities. 

In as much as the continent’s past was ugly filled with racial injustice, backward looking reflections and policies will not lift the continent’s prospects up.  We often look to powerful people around us to guide us and often we surrender our future to the few, underpinned by a rational thought process, that powerful people can be better angels than ordinary people. 

We often defer decisions that we must and should make in our interests to other people forgetting that no individual; however, powerful possesses the power to know what is between another person’s ears. One thing I have learned is that you can and should not trust another human being to do that which you cannot do for yourself.  History has shown that great nations can trace their origins to great ideas.

Such great ideas have to be understood by ordinary people for them to be of value.  I have often used, for illustrative purposes, the ideas that informed the foundation of the United States of America as an independent nation to make the point that without such foundational principles, values and beliefs, the progress that the country witnessed over the last 233 years would not have been possible.

The value of citizenship lies in the nobility of the ideas that underpin a society of human beings.  With respect to the USA, the second sentence of the declaration of independence that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has inspired many to seek a better foundation for their societies.

I have no doubt that this sentence inspired many oppressed people including Africans to begin to question the utility and morality of the colonial state.  There is no doubt that these words have universal application and are not time specific.

Yes, we are all created equal but human history has shown that in the pursuit of happiness, some men/women conduct themselves as if their lives are more important and indispensable than others. In the sphere of political morality, it is not unaccepted that citizens often look to their political leaders to make the decisions that they should ordinarily make in their self-interest. 

Any civilization that is founded on a principle that men are not equal is bound to fail as any civilization that is premised on powerful people being the custodians of social, political and economic change.

mawere3The unsung heroes/heroines are many and yet we preoccupy our minds looking for the face of a hero/heroine that comes from heaven forgetting that even the most powerful men cannot defy the laws of nature and, therefore, should be accorded no better status than we accord to ourselves.
Any republican ideology would necessarily have to be founded on this cardinal principle that all men are created equal and any variation will have consequences in terms of economic, social and political change and progress. 

The right to life is a basic human right and even the powerful must and should not have a right to interfere with the lives of others. Human beings are the most complex assets and can be mobile if exposed to tyranny and abuse.  You can only abuse people so far and it is common cause that abusive situations produce their own consequences including migration and revolt. 

Liberty is a fundamental foundational principle that is more potent and consequential than the might of the powerful.  Free people can produce extraordinary outcomes and people in bondage produce suboptimal outcomes and at best can undermine the very interests of the people that wish to benefit from the bondage.

It is not entirely inaccurate, for example, to observe that the end of apartheid produced more meaningful benefits to the very people who were its advocates.  Apartheid like colonialism in the final analysis was an immoral ideology that undermined the humanity of the people the system was meant to serve.

It has been observed that the crafters of the declaration were men ahead of their time and the words that came from them were angelic and no doubt inspired by the creator.  They were simply looking for a new beginning and must have been occupied with basic construction issues dealing with the kind of society they wanted to see.

Equally, as Africans we must and should reflect on what kind of Africa we want to see.  When we think of an African what face comes to mind?  Is it a black face or any other face?  Should citizenship be divisible?

There are many who believe that the place of birth should be the only determinant of citizenship.  Using this thinking, it is not surprising that in as much as we may wish to create an Africa with no borders, borders do exist in our minds and it would be naïve to expect an automatic change in attitudes on citizenship.

For example, I am a Zimbabwean born naturalized South African with no different status and profile to many who, for instance, came from Europe and decided to adopt South Africa as their new home.  They normally do not suffer the indignity of being asked when they are going to go back home to Europe.  Instead they are easily embraced as South Africans.

In the enterprise of nation building, one cardinal principle is the indivisibility of citizenship.  No nation that seeks to advance its cause can have strips of citizenship where natives as they may wish to call themselves acquire a superior level of citizenship and those that decide to naturalize acquire another.

Although we all know that we are born to die one day, we would like to believe that we have the capacity extend or manage life.  What is significant is that in life we all wish to be happy people and live life to the fullest.   This can only be done in societies that believe that such a right is not negotiable or happiness is a privilege.

What ideas influence us to consider ourselves as African?  What are the foundations of our own post-colonial political philosophies?  What principles should be used for guiding African constitutions? We all want an Africa that works for its people and yet rarely do we pause to reflect on what kind of Africa we want to see and what are our obligations to make it happen.  

The future is our business and it is shaped by our actions.  The powerful only become powerful because we allow them to be and more importantly we easily surrender our future to other people forgetting that we are the shapers of the future.

If the future is our responsibility then why is it the case that we often consume productive time debating about the qualities of leaders instead of focusing on what we should do to create the kind of Africa that guarantees citizens the rights that are necessary for progress and change.

I would like to live in an Africa founded on powerful ideas than informed by the choices of powerful men/women.  It is in the ideas game that we should focus our attention than on the whims of the few wise men that like prodigal sons have been placed in an invidious position to make the kind of decisions that should ordinarily be made by us as the governed. 

Any leader that is elected cannot and should not be allowed to transform him into a fountain of intellect or wisdom because no electoral process was ever designed to produce the kind of outcome that we expect in terms of enlightened wisdom.

Call for enforced disappearances to end

By
admin
-
0

Johannesburg, South Africa 

A 3-day Zimbabwe Exiles Forum (ZEF) workshop organized in Johannesburg to discuss the phenomenon of Enforced Disappearances (ED’s) ended with a call to Zimbabwe government to stop the practice.

The workshop, which was supported by Aim for Human Rights of Netherlands attracted leading luminaries of the civil society movement from Zimbabwe and South Africa. Some of the organizations represented included Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Restoration of Human Rights, Zimrights, Women of Zimbabwe Arise as well as South African NGO’s such as Khulumani. 

Commending after the workshop, Mr Gabriel Shumba, the Executive Director of ZEF and also a human rights lawyer said, “Enforced disappearances are an international crime, yet they have been happening in Zimbabwe over the years. They involve the recent phenomenon  of abductions, yet they date back to pre-independence and the Gukurahundi period. We urge the government of national unity to ratify the UN Convention on ED’s, as well as to stop the practice of ED’s by the state.” 

The ZEF workshop which began on the 7th and ended on the 9th of August ended with delegates receiving certificates of attendance. It also recommended increased collaboration on this issue between the ZEF and NGO’s in Zimbabwe; the setting up of a secretariat to deal with this; the need for ZEF to raise the issue with international and regional bodies such as the UN and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and a demand that this crime be recognized as such in Zimbabwe as well as the need to give as a right protection from this crime by the state.

Gono, Tomana issue not serious: ZANU PF

By
admin
-
0

Charles Tembo

HARARE – President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF party on Tuesday said it saw no need for outside help to break a deadlock with Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party over appointment of Zimbabwe’s central bank chief and attorney general.

In remarks clearly designed to show South African President and regional chairman Jacob Zuma that any attempts to push for ZANU PF and MDC to share the two key posts will be resisted, a top official of Mugabe’s party said a dispute over the two appointments was an internal matter for Zimbabwe’s unity government to resolve.

ZANU PF deputy spokesman Ephraim Masawi said the party considered the issue of Western sanctions against Mugabe and his inner circle a more urgent matter than who should be the country’s central banker or attorney general.

“As ZANU PF those are internal issues that must be solved between the President, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. What is hurting us most are sanctions,” Masawi told ZimOnline.

“We think the Gono (Gideon, central bank chief) and Tomana (Johannes, attorney general) issues are not very serious issues because in any case any appointed person can never be independent,” he added.

Reports by South African media this week suggested that Zuma, who met Tsvangirai in Johannesburg last week to discuss the deadlock over the two top posts and other problems holding back Zimbabwe’s unity government, was expected to visit Harare to push for a resolution of the issues.

The reports said Zuma would pressure Mugabe, who gave the central bank and attorney general’s jobs to Gono and Tomana without consulting his coalition partners, to agree to give one of the two posts to Tsvangirai’s MDC party.

RBZ governor Gideon Gono
RBZ governor Gideon Gono

Zuma is expected to visit Zimbabwe in response to an invitation from the Zimbabwean government, but an official state visit is not yet on the cards. 


The South African President is considered more sympathetic to Tsvangirai but he will next month step down as chairman of the Southern African Development Community with Mugabe ally and Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila assuming the rotating regional chair.

Zimbabwe’s unity government has done well to stabilise the economy and end inflation that was estimated at more than a trillion percent at the height of the country’s economic meltdown last year.

But doubts remain about the administration’s long-term effectiveness, fuelled by unending squabbles between ZANU PF and the MDC as well as by the unity government’s inability to secure direct financial support from rich Western nations. – ZimOnline

Bishop Magaya on Rules for our Rulers

By
admin
-
0

Interview broadcast 03/08/09 

As Zimbabwe struggles towards a new constitution, SW Radio Africa in conjunction with Zimbabwe Democracy Now, bring you Rules for our Rulers, a programme that gives you the chance to air your views on the constitution you want. We speak to the youth, women, churches, politicians and civil society groups working in and outside Zimbabwe. Rules for our Rulers….telling politicians what you want. 

Lance Guma: Maswera sei mhuri ye Zimbabwe, we welcome you to Rules for our Rulers, a programme where we are looking at the crafting of a new constitution and giving various groups the platform to have their say. This week we speak to Bishop Ancelimo Magaya from the Christian Alliance. Bishop, thank you very much for joining us on the programme. 

Bishop Ancelimo Magaya: You’re welcome. 

Lance: Now just recently you took part in the Mass Public Opinion Institute’s monthly forum on the 29th of July and this was really a debate on whether or not the new constitution process represented a false start. Now opening remarks, Bishop Magaya, what do you make of the process so far?

Magaya: OK, I think the process so far, as far as I’m concerned, in the circumstances that are prevailing, the current process that we have, I’m sure, is the only possible practical way forward. Of course I am quite cognizant of the fact that people have various views regarding that and there are others who would have felt that these processes should not have involved the government at all because they argue from the theory that the politicians of the day should not take part or should not be predominant in the writing of the constitution and therefore they feel that people must wholly own this process and by that they mean that it should be strictly civic society and other various stakeholders, apart from the government. 

So you have on one hand that extreme point, but you also have on the other hand another possible extreme view which would have wanted to see the executive really driving this process. And I think that this process that we have which I dub the ‘middle of the road’ approach is the best in the circumstances prevailing where we have at least a kind of combination of the two. We have the parliament which is the only democratic institute that we have in Zimbabwe currently, facilitating this process and I believe that, as of now that is the ideal practical situation. 

Lance: Now those who are opposed to that type of process Bishop Magaya are saying if you leave it to the politicians there will be no control of the final product by ordinary people so their reservations are drawn from that. 

Magaya: That argument is well understandable, especially that we are coming from a background where that has happened before, I mean 1999 and 2000, we have the same sort of thing happening where the government was actually driving this process and then one of the reasons why it is called people rejected that constitution is that one, people felt that it was driven from the executive but also secondly, there are certain commissioners that were part of this process that disassociated themselves. Why – because they felt that the end result of that process was actually doctored, what they had seen was not, as far as they were concerned, was not what they initially crafted in there. 

So of course you understand, I think so what? Given if the politicians actually control, so what, does this mean we should then withdraw and actually leave it wholly to them? I think that we should fight to ensure that that does not happen. I was actually arguing last Thursday that the select committee, which I’m sure so far has done fairly well despite the disruptions from various quarters, politicians, Zanu-PF in particular, they have attempted to disrupt this process because I don’ think the hard-liners within Zanu-PF are keen for the writing of the constitution. 

They have done so well and I was arguing then that look, the All Stakeholders Conference should be the supreme organ in this process, where we have that organ determining and defining in every minutest detail how this process must unfold and one of the demands that we have to make is that. We don’t want any member within the executive or any parliamentarian to alter even in a minute fraction of that draft once we are done with the consultations. Once the All Stakeholders have said yes this is what we have agreed on and then the Select Committee submits their draft report and then straight we go to the referendum. 

Lance: But confusing the whole issue, I think one aspect that has really muddied the waters here a little bit is the Kariba Draft. Now we know Robert Mugabe has already told his Zanu-PF central committee that the Kariba Draft should form the basis of a framework for a new constitution, we’ve also heard the State-owned Herald newspaper publishing the Kariba Draft, so there are worries from a lot of quarters that this whole constitutional process is nothing but a sham to smuggle the Kariba draft into the constitution. 

Magaya: As I said already, again the cynics, the suspicions are well understandable. Number one because Zanu-PF is not to be trusted, they have shifted goal posts at time without …(inaudible) and I’m sure nobody should actually trust them, but equally so if the fact that we don’t trust them should not mean that we should actually give up and allow them to run an open cheque with peoples’ lives. What I’m very certain of is that the Kariba document is the desire of Zanu-PF and of course in a democratic society it is their right to campaign for Kariba document but they should equally so not be allowed to impose the Kariba document onto the populace of Zimbabwe. 

And one of the things…(inaudible)…Zimbabweans are still slaves to the past, slaves to the history. Mugabe says something at a central committee meeting or political meeting of Zanu-PF and they should not confuse that as an official statement of the government. He is speaking from the viewpoint of the president of a political party which is not necessarily the government. Don’t you forget that after having said that, he is having to meet about 52 members of cabinet who would look at him in the face and say no to what he is talking about. So people should not be scared simply because the State (owned) Herald has pontificated on the Kariba document, or Mugabe has pre-empted whatever this process and say this Kariba document – that is his opinion and he is one of the Zimbabweans but that should not be taken as the gospel regarding the writing the constitution. 

Lance: Now groups like the NCA have taken the position to completely boycott; I did speak to Munyaradzi Gwisai a couple of weeks ago and the position of their own organisation, the Democratic United Front is that they will participate under protest. Now is there a feeling, listening to you talking, saying we should use this chance, is there a feeling that government has in a sense, bullied people into accepting this process, although it’s not what they really would have wanted, in terms of the civil society groups, it’s not really what they would have wanted but they have simply been bullied into accepting this? 

Magaya: Yah, one would say yes, the people might have been bullied but I don’t think the fact that they have accepted to actually participate, albeit of course under protest, does mean that we have accepted the bullying. It simply is an acknowledgement of the fact that the reality on the ground is that Zanu-PF still holds a sizeable amount of power and the only thing that they would want is for the people to boycott this whole process and then of course we’d delay, we’d delay the process of change. 

But we are saying look remember 29th March in 2008, people spoke with clarity in an environment that was not conducive to free and fair elections. Of course we appreciate that it was relatively free in comparison with 27th June non event but we have said despite that environment which is not quite ideal, despite the process that is not ideal, we will go on, we will mobilise the people and the will of God as will be expressed in the will of the people, will prevail and this I can assure you despite the circumstances obtaining. 

Lance: Now at this Mass Public Opinion Institute Forum, you gave an overview of the history of Zimbabwe’s constitution, before of course looking at the potential benefits and pitfalls in the current process, so I have to ask this question – do you think the ‘vote no’ campaign that was run by the NCA in 2000 was a mistake?

Magaya: I wouldn’t say that was a mistake really, I think that was a very clear political statement. Why – because it was run by one party, it was a sort of one party activity. Of course it has its own consequences in that it has somewhat delayed certain processes of change but I think we have had to count our losses in principle and I wouldn’t want to suggest that it was really a mistake, not at all. Look, people had to make a statement, number one it was wholly run by Zanu-PF and we also had to test our ground, rather to test the waters for possibility of change. 

So it was quite providential and necessary there. But now there has been reconfiguration, things have changed and there are many more players, men and women of integrity that are now part and parcel of this process and we need to understand that the MDC does not have a total control of this, but we need to take advantage of the slight window of opportunity that has opened up to actually ensure that the will of the people will prevail. 

Lance: Is there a big worry that there has been a lot of focus on the process rather than the content? Are we not being waylaid into looking… 

Magaya: Precisely. Precisely that. I think we have also made reference to what has happened in other countries, for example South Africa. Look we have had politicians involved and they did not even hold a referendum but they have a probably an ideal constitution so wasting time on process as opposed to content, it’s like chasing a rat that has entered a house when the house is burning and we actually waste energy and resources on minors and rather majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors. 

Lance: In terms of what we should have in this whole new constitution, getting to specifics, the content that we’re talking about, what sort of things would an organisation like the one that you represent, the Christian Alliance, what sort of things would you want in a new constitution? 

Magaya: Right, what we would want in a new constitution has, and of course I appreciate the fact that a lot of these things are going to be quite reactionary but I also believe that they are going to be timeless in terms of their value and application. But what really we are keen on is things surrounding electoral and electoral processes in our country which have really been abused to favour a different side but also the excessive powers on the part of the office of the president, we would want a situation where power is separated, and that for us is going to be very critical, but also human rights, human rights, the upholding of human rights where people are allowed to associate freely. 

For us these are critical and fundamental issues that we feel would be non-negotiable. In other words, we want this constitution to be able to address the processes of structural power. We don’t want people to hold onto power even though when people no longer want them. 

Lance: Now I had one interesting interview some time ago with Dr Alex Magaisa who had written an article entitled ‘A new constitution will not save Zimbabwe’. Now his argument is that there’s an obsession with the constitution as a panacea to everything, saying what is needed is a respect for constitutions rather than really looking at a new constitution in itself. For example the current constitution, if respected, guarantees a lot of freedoms. So it’s all about respect for a new constitution or respect for a constitution rather than just having a new constitution for the sake of having a new one. 

christian_pastorsMagaya: Exactly, this is what we call constitutionalism – the way in which people interact to the constitution, the way they uphold that which is enshrined and contained in the constitution. You know it is not the constitution alone that actually makes things right. I have actually heard people, even in some of these organisations, people actually change the constitution for purposes of what, their own personal gain, so really you are right, I agree with Dr Alex Magaisa, that yes, it’s not only the constitution that is important but also respect for it. But we’ve got to have a starting point, where we in the first place have to have a good constitution and then we begin to move onto the next level where we fight and defend that constitution and ensure that we are ready to die for it in the event that somebody would want to abuse it and so forth. 

Lance: My final question Bishop Magaya, constitutions are very technical creatures, I mean if you were to be going out in the rural areas, outreach programmes would people there really understand what’s happening, what sort of input they should give, what is a constitution, what is a constitution meant to be doing – is that not quite a challenge for this process?

Magaya: Of course it is but I think we can demystify some of these concepts. People know what happened to them last year, they were beaten, battered, bruised and so forth and then we told them to explain the constitutional issues vis-à-vis, I mean their experiences. The fact that they have been abused, they have been tortured, simply because that party did not have rightful respect for the constitution. So you try to demystify the complex concepts of the constitutional issues and try to bring it home where people really understand it. And I’m sure it’s going to be a bit tough but I think also it is not insurmountable. 

Lance: That there is Bishop Ancelimo Magaya speaking to us on Rules for the Rulers and he of course is from the Christian Alliance. Bishop Magaya thank you very much for joining us on the programme. 

Magaya: Thank you very much my brother, God bless you.

Msika was kept alive for Heroes Day

By
admin
-
0

By Denford Magora

While waiting for Robert “The Solution” Mugabe to speak at the funeral of VP Msika today, a member of the ZANU PF Politburo turned to me and said, “So they kept him on ice for this day?”

I did not quite understand until Mugabe started to speak. Then it dawned on me and afterwards, I asked the gentleman what he meant.

Apparently, the Vice-president was hospitalised at West End Hospital for 46 days. I am told that by the 23rd day, it was clear that the veteran nationalist was now simply breathing artificially through the life support system.

For the next 26 or so days, the “charade” as my conversationalist put it, was kept up. The life support kept him “functioning” even though life had ceased to be in him quite a while back.

It was only on Wednesday morning, as Mugabe revealed when he briefed the Politburo, that the life support system was taken off the VP. This was five days before Heroes Day.

The five days allowed for the body to be taken to Chiweshe, the VPs rural home which he loved very much and would have preferred to be his final resting place were he not such a towering national figure.

After that, his body was flown to Bulawayo where throngs flocked to White City Stadium to bid him farewell. Bulawayo is where his political career not only started but was also anchored.

Then it was back to Harare where he lay in state at Stoddart Hall in Mbare, which, together with Highfields, was the epicentre of resistance to colonial rule during the VPs and Mugabes heydays.

The timing was perfect. So perfect, in fact, that it could literally have been engineered to go this way.

Conveniently, the Vice-President passed away only days before the Heroes Day holiday. The gathering at Heroes Acre, therefore, became much more than just the usual gathering where Mugabe speaks over the graves of his departed comrades-in-arms.

It was a masterstroke, I guess: burying a true and undisputed hero on Heroes Day at Heroes Acre.

josephmsika2It is a script worthy of any fiction-writer. Except this is reality.

Mugabe today explicitly thanked the Public Service Medical Aid Society and their parent company, who own West End hospital where the VP spent the last 46 days of life.

The president also explicitly noted the 46 days the VP spent there in his speech.

Generals finally salute Tsvangirai

By
admin
-
0

By Never Kadungure

Zimbabwe’s arrogant set of generals who vowed never to salute Morgan Tsvangirai were forced to eat humble pie on Tuesday when they saluted the country’s new Prime Minister.

The generals have time and time again said they would not salute anyone without a liberation war history and specifically made it known their loyalty was to Mugabe and not Tsvangirai.

But during Armed Forces Day on Tuesday which was attended by Tsvangirai, the generals saluted their previously sworn enemy.

Several weeks ago Defence Minister Emerson Mnangagwa told parliament that the generals were not legally obliged to salute anyone outside their military structures.

Mnangagwa further explained that Mugabe was always saluted because he was the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

“There are two positions: the legal and the civil position. At law, no officer will commit any offence for not saluting a person who is not in the military structure, but morally they should salute senior members of society,” he said

1...8,0378,0388,039...8,067Page 8,038 of 8,067