1. Background Zimbabwe’s pro tem suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth for a period of one year was announced in a statement from Marlborough House on 19th March 2002. This suspension implemented a prior warning to the Zimbabwe government by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group that a poor report on the Presidential Election of 2002 would result in punitive action by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting in Nigeria later that year had to review the suspension and decide whether to rescind it, leave it in place for a specified period, suspend Zimbabwe completely from the Commonwealth (and not just its Councils), and, most improbably, to expel Zimbabwe. In the final event, President Robert Mugabe unilaterally withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has found it difficult subsequently to re-engage with the Zimbabwe Question. Zimbabwe presents an important and new test for the principles of the Commonwealth. Although Zimbabwe has withdrawn from the Commonwealth it should be borne in mind that the Commonwealth continued to address the South African question robustly during Apartheid, even though South Africa had withdrawn from the Commonwealth, and acted resolutely to restore Rhodesia to the community of nations as a non-racial democracy. It would thus be inconsistent, notwithstanding Zimbabwe’s withdrawal, for the Commonwealth not to act with equal determination on the Zimbabwe Question, particularly as it is doubtful that the withdrawal by the Mugabe government was in accordance with the wishes of the Zimbabwean people as a whole. 2. The legal framework for addressing the Zimbabwe Question The legal framework for engaging with the government of Zimbabwe originates from the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles in 1971, which established a Charter of Fundamental Rights for the Commonwealth. There were minor extensions of these Principles in Lusaka in 1979 and in Nassau in 1985, followed by a statement on the desirability of universal jurisdiction and international instruments at Bangalore in 1988. However, the complete statement, ironically, emanated from a meeting in Zimbabwe in 1991 with the Commonwealth’s Harare Declaration [see Appendix 1]. In terms of the Harare Declaration Commonwealth, State Parties reaffirmed their commitment to work for the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the association, namely democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, fundamental human rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and just and honest government. The Harare Declaration was given added power in 1995 with the passing of the Millbrook 4