The analysis and observations of the NPRC Bill will be less legalistic, as the views contained are an attempt to package and present concerns and views expressed by victims, their families, survivors and other stakeholders. The participant’s views in this paper were gathered from both ordinary citizens, key informants and people who have been affected in different ways by Zimbabwe’s past history of human rights violations. For ease of reference, the views gathered from the communities are categorised into two (3a) submissions dealing with the text of the NPRC Bill, and (3b) submissions that HZT considers essential to be part of the NPRC Bill. 3a) Specific clauses in the Bill i) Limited Investigative Powers of the Commission The NPRC is given specific mandate to carry out investigations in section 7 of the Bill. However, there are claw-back clauses which seem to want to have the effect of pulling the rug off the feet of the NPRC’s intended functions. For example, section 7(1) notes that the NPRC has to advertise in a Government Gazette or national newspapers of its intention to investigate at least 14 days after the notice and no later than a month after the notice. This is counterproductive. On face value, it appears this clause is meant to serve as a whistle blower of sorts to alleged perpetrators making it easier for them to conceal and prepare/rehearse for the investigations. The provision also limits the number of cases that could be heard by a commission because of the number of days that should be given before instituting an inquiry. HZT recommends that this clause be struck off this Bill as it gives investigative powers to the NPRC with the right hand and takes them away with the left. ii) Independence of the Commission Section 8 (7) of the Bill, gives the responsible Minister unlimited powers over the operations of the NPRC. This section gives the responsible Minister Powers to issue a Certificate regarding the disclosure of evidence or any documentation associated with such if he deems it contrary to public interest. According to the Bill, the public interest is enunciated as affecting matters related to (national defence; external relations; internal security and the economic interest of the state). This proscription is too wide and borders on paralysing the work and independence of the constitution against Section 235 (1a) of the Constitution which states that “independent commissions are not subject to direction or control of anyone”. Section 235(3) also states that “no person may interfere with the functioning of independent Commissions.” Therefore, this clause would be ultra-vires the constitution. It may also be offensive as to render the Minister guilty of breaching section 8(13) “c and d” of the same Bill which proscribes anyone from “discouraging and dissuading” the NPRC from carrying out its constitutionally mandated duties. 4