ratified by the Zimbabwean government shall form a part of the local laws unless parliament passes a law making the agreement part of the laws of Zimbabwe. What this means is that while government is signatory to international treaties and protocols like SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections (2004), Principles for Election Management, Monitoring and Observation (2003), SADC-PF Norms and Standards for Elections in SADC (2001), African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and all other international and regional instruments, there are no local statutory instruments in place, in the country, to ensure that the contents of the various regional and international documents are enforced. What is happening is that government, through a partisan parliament, and through executive powers vested in the president by the constitution, is enacting laws and other statutory instruments, that curtail the freedoms availed by the various regional and international instruments. Of serious concern today is the Zimbabwean constitution. While it vaguely or rather casually guarantees the freedoms of expression and association, the twin tenets of democracy, it allows for the Executive and his highly partisan parliament, to pass laws that restrict or virtually nullify the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Of particular concern are the two Acts I have mentioned earlier on, POSA and AIPPA. POSA makes it illegal for more than five people to be gathered and interact without prior police clearance. It outlaws political gatherings that have not been sanctioned by the police. To make matters worse, under the same Act, political rallies could be banned, as was the case in Harare and the satellite town of Chitungwiza during the beginning of the year. AIPPA has been used to close newspapers critical to the government like the Daily News, the Daily News on Sunday, The Tribune and others publications which were deemed ‘anti-governmemt’. The Electoral Act (2004), which purportedly offered electoral reforms, is one statutory instrument that has been enforced without wide consultation in its formulation and enactment. It has allowed for the president to appoint an electoral commission that is highly partisan and manned by government paid civil servants whose impartiality cannot be guaranteed. It has also empowered