European Union and European Commission Case C‑330/15 P and Aguy Georgias and Others1 v The
Council of the European Union and European Commission Case T 168/12. Significantly, the applicants in
both cases were only the targeted individuals affected by the measures. The Government of Zimbabwe
was not a party to either suit. In the Tomana case the applicant was Johannes Tomana (then the
Attorney-General) and 120 other individuals on the EU sanctions list. Despite this, the suit was
conducted under the auspices of the Attorney-General, leading to the suspicion that legal costs,
reported to be “millions of dollars” were met by Zimbabwean taxpayers. The Sunday Mail suggested
that the costs, which included the engagement of two local lawyers and top council from the United
Kingdom, were paid by “friends of Zimbabwe inside and outside the country”.2 When reporting on the
proceedings, state media incorrectly stated that Mr. Tomana had brought the suit on behalf of the
Government of Zimbabwe.3
In August, 2019 the SADC summit in Tanzania declared 25 October as the day on which “SADC
Member States can collectively voice their disapproval of the sanctions [on Zimbabwe] through various
activities and platforms until the sanctions are lifted.” What, then, are the “sanctions” imposed by the
EU and US and will lifting them significantly improve Zimbabwe’s economy?
The European Union
In January 2002, the EU Council, reviewing consultations taking place under article 96 of the Cotonou
Agreement, expressed its serious concern about the situation in Zimbabwe, noting the escalation of
violence, intimidation of political opponents and the harassment of the independent press. It specifically
warned that appropriate measures would be taken if there was any interference with the EU Election
Observer Mission for the 11 March, 2002 presidential election in Zimbabwe. In mid-February, the
Government of Zimbabwe effectively expelled the head of the EU Mission, Pierre Schori, after “taking
exception” to his “political utterances” 4 and “political arrogance”.5 The EU Council responded two days
later, withdrawing the remaining EU election observers from Zimbabwe and, on the 18th, adopting two
Common Positions on Zimbabwe under Council Decisions 2002/145/CFSP and EC/148/2002, both
binding on EU Treaty state parties. Since the Government of Zimbabwe has tried to cast the punitive
measures imposed by the EU, as the EU merely “siding with” the UK in a “bi-lateral dispute with Britain
over land redistribution”,6 it is worth noting that the EU was not the only international body to take
action in response to the violent nature and flawed conduct of the 2002 presidential elections and
human rights violations. A month after the EU response, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Councils of
the Commonwealth.7
1
The “others” in the Georgias case were two companies owned by him.
UK exposed as AG takes on EU The Sunday Mail 19.05.12.
3
See, for example, Sanctions Lawsuit: EU Lacks Evidence The Herald 01.28.14 where the reporter writes that the
sanctions are imposed on the Government of Zimbabwe, while the article makes a claim that the EU lacks evidence
against the listed individuals. Similarly, the Sunday Mail article indicates that the suit concerns “sanctions against
Zimbabwe” and then reports that the basis of the suit is that there is no justification for listing the applicants
bringing the suit.
4
Zimbabwe Expels EU Chief Observer The Telegraph 17.02.02 The Government had refused to accredit Mr. Schori
as an observer (stating that some EU nationals were unacceptable as observers) and only allowed him to enter the
country as a tourist. The expulsion was effected when immigration officials visited Mr. Schori and handed him a
new visa with an earlier expiry date.
5
EU Imposes Sanctions on Zimbabwe The Guardian (UK) 18.02.02.
6
See, for example, a recent iteration of this in ZIDERA: It Was Never about Democracy The Herald 23.10.19, where
the same reasoning is applied to the measures taken by the US,
7
Mugabe withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth in December 2003, after the suspension, initially for a
year, had been extended indefinitely in February 2003.
2
2