the coffin of an already shattered economy. This will lead to even greater hardship for the long suffering people of Zimbabwe. It is also pertinent to repeat here that this campaign of violence is planned, widespread and systematic, with numerous reports of army personnel, and state resources being utilised. There is no evidence that this violence is repudiated by the Zimbabwe government, and, hence, it is clear, as was pointed out recently by the Southern African Litigation Centre, that both the perpetrators and those bearing command responsibility are liable for prosecution for crimes against humanity. This raises far more serious issues than the mere delay of results or unlawful recounting of the votes. Both the AU Constitutive Act and the SADC Treaty require action when member states are in breach. The AU Constitutive Act allows a challenge to sovereignty in case of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity,7 whilst the SADC Treaty, in Article 6(2), requires that “SADC and Member States shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of gender, religion, political views, race, ethnic origin, culture, ill health, disability, or such other ground as may be determined by the Summit”.8 The legal frameworks that govern these two organizations suggest that both should be doing considerably more than wringing their hands over the non-release of results. Attention should be paid to the possibility that there has been a “coup by stealth” and gross human rights violations that accord with the definition of crimes against humanity are being perpetrated by the Zimbabwe government. 7 Article 4 (h) Principles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. SADC is also entitled to take action by means of sanctions against any member state that (a) persistently fails, without good reason, to fulfill obligations assumed under this Treaty; (b) implements policies which undermine the principles and objectives of SADC [ARTICLE 33]. 8 12