Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe appointing (ceremonially, after required consultations) not only elected Parliamentarians but other state officials (including judges, heads of the uniformed services, various Board members, permanent secretaries in the Public Service, and many others); exercising the prerogative of mercy; declaring a public emergency in part or all of the country (which is subject to Parliamentary resolve and within 14 days requires its approval to be maintained, although 30 days is allowed if Parliament is not sitting). While in office, the President of Zimbabwe is not ‘personally liable to any civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever in any court’ (s30). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the incumbent is liable in her or his official capacity to legal proceedings, and gave President Mugabe 20 days to respond to the demand made by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) and the Legal Resources Foundation (LRF)1 that he release the Dumbutshena and Chihambakwe reports into disturbances in Matabeleland between 1981 and 1985. ‘There has always been speculation that the reports do not support the government’s position that the violence was justified’.2 The State President notified his intent to oppose publication. Shortly thereafter, the only extant copy of the Dumbutshena Report was reported to have been removed from the National Archives by the CIO,3 which is located in the Office of the President and Cabinet. In provisions that do nothing to strengthen and arguably weaken the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the President is absolutely protected from legal scrutiny of her or his decision-making by s31K, introduced in 1987 ahead of the switch to an executive presidency: 24 Where the President is required or permitted by this Constitution or any other law to act on his own deliberate judgement, a court shall not, in any case, enquire into any of the following questions or matters – (a) whether any advice or recommendation was tendered to the President or acted on by him; or (b) whether any consultation took place in connection with the performance of the act; or (c) the nature of any advice or recommendation tendered to the President; or (d) the manner in which the President has exercised his discretion. 25 Where the President is required or permitted by this Constitution or any other law to act on the advice or recommendation of or after any consultation with any person or authority, a court shall not, in any case, enquire into any of the following questions or matters – (a) the nature of any advice or recommendation tendered to the President; or (b) the manner in which the President has exercised his discretion. Since Robert Mugabe defeated Edgar Tekere in the first election4 for an executive State President in 1990, there has been growing disaffection with his performance, particularly the way in which he has used Presidential authority. Supported also by ZimRights (The Daily News 8.3.00). The Daily News 22.2.00. 3 ZI 14.4.00. 4 In 1987, MPs ‘elected’ the first executive President (Robert Mugabe) for the remainder (three years) of the fiveyear term due to retiring President Banana. 1 2 17