participants came and 31 contributions were received. Thus, for Team A and Team B, 10
meetings were held, 1050 participants attended, 607 were males, and 443 were females, and a
total of 207 contributions were made.
Organisations that made their submissions include the following: The National Transitional
Justice Working Group Zimbabwe (NTJWG); Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in
Zimbabwe (CCPJ); Zimbabwe Human Rights Associations (ZHRAs); Post-Independence Survivors'
Trust (PIST); Centre for Public Engagement; The Ecumenical Church Leaders Forum (ECLF); and
The Zimbabwe Christian Alliance (ZCA).
3.0 Submissions by members of the Public
3.1 Clause 1 – The long title
Members expressed that the purpose of a short title is to give a short descriptive summary of
the subject matter of the Act. Hence, it was felt that the current title is weak and does not
embrace the full purpose of the proposed law. It was the view that the purpose of the NPRC Bill
and what it intends to achieve has to be stated clearly in the Long title.
3.2 Clause 2: Interpretation
The interpretation section was viewed as being shallow and not aiding in the interpretation of
words used in the Bill. For instance,members of the public cited the definition of ‘dispute’ that
was equated to ‘conflict’ which was then defined to mean any dispute or conflict of a kind
within the scope of the Commission’s constitutional mandate, which Constitution however does
not provide a definition of a conflict. Stakeholders also noted that major terms used in a conflict
situation are not defined in this Bill.
3.3 Clause 3: Powers, Procedures and Functions of Commission
Stakeholders raised concerns on the failure by the Bill to clearly categorise, list and define the
functions of the Commission, its powers, procedures for handling complaints up to the stage of
acquittal or conviction and conditions under which one is granted amnesty. It was a strong view
that the functions of the Commission are not corresponding with the powers of the
Commission.
3.4 Clause 4: Independence of the Commission
Stakeholders expressed concerns about the extent of the independence of the Commission in
circumstances where the Ministerof National Security is allowed to lodge a certificate to the
effect that the disclosure of any evidence or document or class of evidence or documentation
is, in his or her opinion, contrary to the public interest. Some concerns were also raised on the
role of the Minister in the setting up of the secretariat arguing that this was some form of
interference with the functions of the commission eroding its independence.
3.5 Clause 5: Seal of the Commission
No issues.
3.6 Clause 6: Offices and operations of Commission
A strong view was expressed that there is need for a clause sanctioning decentralisation by
setting up offices even in very remote areas to ensure equal access to justice by all.
3.7 Clause 7: Removal of Members from Office
No issues.