With regard to the former, the foundation of security sector governance in Rhodesia was built on the violent military subjugation of the indigenous people and the establishment of an oppressive and discriminatory system of exploitation, which was maintained by various degrees of coercion and force as required. The security system was designed and developed to ensure colonial occupation and to sustain the safety and security of only a small (white) minority of the inhabitants of the country. Its main features were reinforced and more directly expressed in response to the emerging resistance of the nationalist movement and subsequently the direct threat posed by the armed liberation fighters. These features included increasingly oppressive legislation, selective application of the rule of law and indeed systematic violations of the law as required to suppress resistance, obsessive secrecy and absence of accountability and oversight, systematic use of violent means and legitimization of the use of violence and illegal acts to counter the liberation struggle. Interestingly corruption was widespread in the political and security apparatus of Rhodesia and much of it was disguised and condoned as patriotically inspired sanctions busting or as an integral part of the fight against “terrorists”. In many respects the Rhodesian concept of security was holistic and integrated, as more modern concepts of security today require. Legislative frameworks such as the Land Apportionment Act or discriminatory laws that prevented black Zimbabweans from living in white urban areas or attending white schools, hospitals or even entering white department stores, supplemented direct ‘hard security’ enforcement by ostensibly protecting white communities from black people. Agricultural subsidies and services enabled commercially unsuccessful white farmers to remain on the land in part for security reasons. Maintaining a colonial political and economic system largely for the benefit of a white capitalist elite and its imperialist allies also required incentives and measures which benefitted the white community as a whole and these included safety and security policies. This was the security sector governance system and machinery we inherited in 1980. The liberation legacy with which we tackled the task of transformation of the colonial state and its security system was largely determined by two factors, willingness to transform the colonial inheritance and capacity. With regard to “willingness” we should be aware of the fact that the liberation movement as whole contained a range of perspectives, interests and intentions concerning transformation of the colonial state. These included both those committed to a radical revolutionary transformation and those inclined to slip comfortably into the shoes of the former colonial masters. If we want to assess the prospects for transformation in 1980, including transformation of the security system, we might also include the impact on the liberation movement and transformation itself of the presence of enemy agents recruited and planted over 7