FOREWORD Zimbabwe’s body politic has been marred by high levels of intimidation, violence, impunity and intolerance of divergent political views. Realizing this fact, the political actors in Zimbabwe were pushed to form an inclusive government in 2008 that spearheaded a constitutional reform process ushering in a new constitution in 2013. As part of the provisions of the constitution, section 251 to 253 provides for a National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC) with a mandate to ensure post conflict justice, healing and reconciliation among other functions. For the first time in independent Zimbabwe, the government acknowledged in the supreme law of the land that it was important to look back and take measures to remedy past human rights abuses. More than two years after the adoption of the new constitution, the President of Zimbabwe appointed the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission and a Bill on the same has since been introduced in Parliament. It is in this context that Zimbabwe Civic Education Trust and Heal Zimbabwe Trust are producing this paper to inform national conversations on transitional justice and the operationalisation of the NPRC. The focus of this particular paper is to look at the efficacy of traditional mechanisms in transitional justice in Zimbabwe. The role of indigenous knowledge systems and use of local capacities can no longer be underestimated in development. Traditional mechanisms are often viewed with a lot of suspicion possibly because they do not fit in western perceptions and notions of justice. They are often located deep in rural areas and operate oblivious of national initiatives. Whilst traditional or indigenous mechanisms of justice have their own shortcomings such as bias against women and children, failure to abide by international human rights standards and failure to document judgements among other shortcomings, the mechanisms remain key in ensuring that justice is domestically rooted and owned by local communities for sustainability of peace and justice. It is imperative to build on cultural and contextual resources present within a setting. Far from being archaic, this paper argues that traditional mechanisms are actually modern phenomena as they have been adapted overtime. Traditional mechanisms of transitional justice facilitate citizens to have access to justice in less costly ways and foster greater ownership through the use of local languages. They have been deployed successfully in the Rwandese gacaca courts, the mato oput of Uganda, barza intercommunautaire of DRC and bashingantahe of Burundi among other countries. Whilst traditional mechanisms of transitional justice are not panacea for all ills, they are an approach that so far has been underestimated by actors. They demonstrate that beyond the state, there are other existing institutions and actors for ensuring peace and justice. iv