3 Impunity by design – chronicling the history of amnesties in Zimbabwe The phenomenon of impunity for human rights violations committed by state security agents in Zimbabwe is an old practice that started during the colonial era.⁶ Evidence from human rights reports from back then to date shows that the State has always resorted to the use of force by security agents to resolve political differences. The dilemma that continues to fester is that when the GoZ has been confronted by victims and human rights defenders to redress such wrongs, there has been lethargy in instituting punishments against the accused security officers. Seeking redress in Zimbabwe has always been a huge challenge because of the provision of amnesty laws that shield most of the perpetrators from accountability. Pro-amnesty champions have opined that challenging the existing amnesty laws and any other pardons for human rights abusers would subvert the very rule of law that the human rights movement champions by violating the cardinal principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia.⁷ This issue points to the need to establish whether the pardons outlined below were and are in fact legally binding as well as compliance with international standards and principles on amnesties. Questions can be asked further on whether victims and survivors of pardoned human rights violations can still have recourse to judicial or other mechanisms of redress. This section narrates the long-held tradition of impunity by the state in support of state security agents. This section seeks to show that Zimbabwe needs to make a clean break with its nasty past of torture and other egregious human rights violations by state security agents acting in the name of the past that they go unpunished. Indemnity and Compensation Act of 1975 This law sought to indemnify the black and white Rhodesia police and soldiers in advance for any human rights violations they would commit. The key provision of this Act read, “if any member of the security forces, defined as the army, the police, and the CIO, or if any civil servant or any minister of government, acting in good faith, committed a breach of the law and became liable criminally or civilly, no court of law could hold them accountable”. Amnesty Ordinance (3) of 1979 and Amnesty (General Pardon) Ordinance (12) of 1980 As part of the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 that led to Zimbabwe's independence the Amnesty Ordinance (3) of 1979 and the Amnesty (General Pardon) Ordinance (12) of 1980 were legislated to grant an amnesty to all of those who had participated in the liberation struggle for African selfdetermination or the defense of then Rhodesia for any human rights violation they had committed such as killings, rape, assault or torture. The Lancaster House Constitution concluded on the eve of Zimbabwe's independence encompassed several agreements that entrenched the culture of impunity over human rights violations that had occurred since the colonial days. It appears the logic was that silence about past injustices would supposedly heal the nation and assist the politics of reconciliation that the then Prime Minister Robert ⁶ Declaration of the Johannesburg Symposium, August 2003, in Civil Society and Justice in Zimbabwe Summary of Proceedings of a Symposium held in Johannesburg 11-13 August 2003. http://www.santep.co.za/satz/zim2003.htm (last accessed 10 January 2006). ⁷A principle which prevent the use of legislation to punish crimes committed before the passing of the legislation. 10 Anti-Impunity Report