Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe ‘We are not afraid of the High Court ... this country belongs to us and we will take it whether they like it or not’. ‘The judges must resign. Their days are now numbered as I am talking to you... I am telling you what the comrades want, not what the law says.’1 The deputy chairman of ZNLWVA’s Harare branch, Mike Moyo, noted ‘The judiciary must go home or else we will chase them and close the courts indefinitely until President Mugabe appoints replacements’.2 This particular threat was followed by one to remove judges by force if they did not resign within a fortnight. Moyo was also quoted as saying ‘the judiciary of Ian Smith is still with us now, joined by some black puppet judges who are making their own laws instead of following laws made by Parliament’.3 Judges were harassed. Only some publicly defended themselves. Just before Zanu-PF’s congress began in December 2000, special protection from the Police Protection Unit was provided to all judges, threatened with attacks on their homes.4 Two months later, Zanu-PF passed by itself its own Parliamentary motion of no confidence in the judiciary. It used the ZBC to request that all of its MPs be in Parliament on 28 February 2000, when they defeated and inverted the MDC’s motion to support the judiciary.5 Thereafter, enormous pressure was brought on the remaining judges of the Supreme Court and High Court judges from minority ethnic groups to resign as well. They initially refused, whereupon Jonathan Moyo reportedly threatened to use the law to remove them.6 Two High Court judges who repeatedly found against the State on fundamental human rights cases subsequently resigned. Generally the judges have acted properly and tried all cases equally according to the law, even when the police, Attorney-General’s Office, or court administrators have discriminated in their handling of cases, for example by remanding people in custody while delaying the processing of bail. Recently-appointed judges thought to sympathise with Zanu-PF and the State President followed the law in ordering trespassers off privately-owned property. Very recently, however, lawyers for 21 Chinhoyi farmers charged with public violence expressed public doubts as to whether their clients would receive a fair trial because of the politicisation of the case and its pre-trial publicity, including statements by prominent public figures as to their guilt.7 There has been no reported (judicial or other) condemnation of news reportage (especially by the state-owned media) that has presumed – indeed, explicitly asserted – the guilt before trial of these farmers and many others accused of public order offences. However, courts at all levels have for the last two years severely criticised ‘gross administrative inefficiency’ within the judicial system.8 Both judges and magistrates slammed inefficiencies Parliamentary Debates 27,26:2686; The Standard 10.12.00. The Daily News (20.11.00, 22.12.00) team was denied entry to State House to cover the swearing in of the new judges. 3 The Herald 24.1.01. 4 The Daily News 14.12.00. 5 The Zanu-PF majority voted for its ‘amendment’ – ruled by the Speaker as ‘proper, procedural and admissable’ [sic] - ‘to delete the motion in its entirety and to substitute’ a proposal that the President set up an [unconstitutional] enquiry into what they alleged to be unspecified ‘misconduct’ among the judiciary. This debate (Parliamentary Debates 27,24; 27,44; 27,46) made profoundly depressing reading. 6 The Herald 23.2.01. 7 The Standard 26.8.01. 8 The Daily News 26.8.99. 1 2 40