REFLECTIONS ON INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION: STRATEGIES FOR SECURITY SECTOR TRANSFORMATION AND AMNESTIES Jeremy Brickhill and Mohamed Suma Jeremy Brickhill and Mohamed Suma spoke about institutional reforms and the impact of amnesties in building sustainable peace. In Jeremy's presentation it was learnt that Zimbabwe inherited colonial institutions that were repressive, brutal and modelled to protect capitalists and the ruling elite. Further, the inherited system defines security in the context of traditional threats. As such Jeremy defined institutional reform within the context of security sector transformation towards advanced human security. Framing security sector transformation within the context of human security shift focus from the narrow definition of security which looks at state security agencies (army, police, central intelligence and prisons) into a broader definition that espouses human development (including education, health, poverty reduction, employment, water, climate change etc.). Key lessons learnt were that; Ÿ Institutional transformation is about human security, hence the call for security sector transformation Ÿ There is need to build strong institutions that act above party politics Ÿ Security sector transformation should espouse key principles – knowledge-based professional implementation, transparency and political impartiality, inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders and should be consensus – based with national ownership Ÿ Multiple stakeholders should (state and non-state actors should be part of the conversation (including the academics, faith-based organisations, NGOs and CBOs, traditional leaders (Council of Chiefs), War veterans platforms, Parliament of Zimbabwe and the citizens. Amnesties in Zimbabwe: Mohamed Suma – International Centre for Transitional Justice The presentation on amnesties was made by Mr. Mohamed Suma of the International Centre for Transitional Justice. The key question for him was to answer the difficult question: “Do amnesties for or against peace”. The context for Zimbabwe is that different amnesties have been put in place to cover up different epochs of human rights violations. He outlined the different amnesties that have been legislated and implemented in Zimbabwe since 1975. Questions abound on the legality of the amnesties, whether Zimbabweans were consulted through parliament and other means. The presenter went on to discuss the international legal regime by conceptualising amnesty provisions and frameworks internationally. He noted that “amnesty” generally is not explicitly defined in international law and there is no treaty or international instrument on amnesty. The counter however is that here is international obligations for states to deliver justice for serious international crimes. Zimbabwe is party to several critical international instruments that quash amnesties issued for international crimes. The ICC is also one measure that has been put in place to deal with the scourge of amnesties across the world. In Africa, the AU Constitutive Act mandates states to protect victims' rights to judicial protection need to have their cause heard. Mohamed issued a disclaimer that there are instances where it might not be possible to prosecute all crimes perpetrated against citizens and the alternative becomes a resort to selective prosecution at least for international crimes. Mahomed also presented the case of amnesties that were implemented after the Sierra Leonne war, the Congolese war and South Africa. A blanket amnesty had been issued and it seemed it was the best option to cease the war between RUF and the Government forces. The effects of the amnesty were quite detrimental as human rights and war crimes continued unabated in Sierra Leonne. 25 2018 TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE POLICY SYMPOSIUM REPORT