Stakeholders observed that in the absence of a national transitional justice policy/strategy, efforts to address historical crimes remain fragmented and disjointed. The NPRC is an important platform for dialogue, but without a supporting policy framework that Links it with other state actors, it remains a lone ranger at risk of running its course without making significant impact. A national policy is required to support its work. The office of the Advisor to the President on Peace and Reconciliation that had been introduced by the Mugabe administration has since been abolished. The current framework within which the NPRC is operating is based on the broad provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as well as its enabling law. This framework, even after the enactment of the NPRC Act, is inadequate in setting the national transitional justice agenda. This is because the discourse of addressing historic atrocities both precedes and succeeds the NPRC. The NPRC offers an important, unprecedented opportunity for a national, official, constitutionally mandated dealing with the past process but it can’t take place in isolation and cannot be expected to deal with everything. There is need for a broader policy: one that prioritizes what is necessary for peace reconciliation, one that acknowledges the necessary trade-offs and existing limitations as well the challenges of reconciliation unique to Zimbabwe. It has thus become critical for stakeholders to take a proactive approach and go beyond the resolutions, demands and principles by using fair practical implementation of measures that will indeed ensure justice for victims, accountability for perpetrators and the guarantee for nonrecurrence. From this context, it has become critical for stakeholders to take steps towards the development of traditional justice policy to ensure a more comprehensive approach to transitional justice in Zimbabwe. 6 2018 TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE POLICY SYMPOSIUM REPORT