Is it possible to have healing led by the state? Sipho observed that he understood the scepticism that people have that the same people who perpetrated violence could not be party to resolving the same conflict. He mentioned that there are days when he is on that same line of thought. He however noted that the state cannot be avoided for many reasons: Ÿ They committed the offices and thus they are part of the conflict. Ÿ The state has many obligations to fulfil in response to the atrocities in Matabeleland and cannot plead the innocence of the 2nd or 3rd Republic if ever that were possible in Zimbabwe. Sipho noted in strong terms that it was nonsensical to defend the perpetrators who are now in government on the reasons that since they are now in a new government their obligations had been obliterated. He argued that they cannot wash their hands off Gukurahundi. Ÿ The state has a responsibility and civil society, victims and survivors have a duty to hold it accountable for Gukurahundi crimes. He acknowledged the low hanging fruits that the opportunities presented by the so-called new republic noting that it would have been possible 3 – 5 years ago to hold such meetings as today in Zimbabwe. He noted that the new government was willing to certain risks believe that it can manage the aftermath. Minding the fear of the perpetrator vs acknowledging the fears of the victims and survivors The presenter noted that there is a phenomenon where the perpetrator is afraid of the victim and vice versa where the victim is also afraid of the perpetrator. The fear is always the 21 same however, it is the people’s collective interests that the process to come forward for perpetrators is facilitated. Sipho noted that he understood that for victims there is always the case that they do not want anything to do with the perpetrators and he as not going to prescribe to them what to do but he wanted to discuss how people can take advantage of the opportunities presented by the current situation. The follow up question for Sipho was: What can the government do? He acknowledged the setting up of the NPRC and their involvement in the work of civil society, victims and other stakeholders. He noted that even the commission’s presence at Matopos was important and showed a sign of changing things. He noted that the NPRC had created spaces instead of Command Commissions and they had abandoned the “you come to us approach of yesteryear Commissions”. Sipho noted that he respected all the Commissioners but had problems with how they had been appointed which threatens their credibility. His argument was on the fact that the Commission had been set up by President Mugabe and left without even a chair and no money at all. Sipho noted that the credibility of the Commissioners was not all lost and they could still regain it with a few changes. What to do with the NPRC? Ÿ Composition of the Commission: He noted that the NPC needs to be revisited by the President so that the issue of its ownership is re-established. He argued that the composition of the NPRC will be key. Ÿ Need for respectable people from the region in the NPRC: Sipho noted that he did not have challenges with the current Commissioners but noted that there as need for better regional representation so that the 2018 TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE POLICY SYMPOSIUM REPORT