Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Special Report Enforcing the Rule of Law in Zimbabwe the previous monopoly,1 and found no technical justification for restrictions on signal transmission or broadcasting especially in regard to cable or satellite services.2 After MDC denunciation of their political tactics and abuse of the rules, Zanu-PF members (summonsed to Parliament by ZBC announcements) passed the Broadcasting Services Act on a division. Describing the bill as unconstitutional, undemocratic and later proposing two dozen amendments, MDC MPs tried in vain to defer the debate in order to consult media industry stakeholders, 183 of whom had signed a petition to Parliament.4 The consensus among media and civic activists is that this legislation will require extensive overhaul to comply with existing Constitutional freedoms of expression and communication. The Labour Relations Amendment Bill (HB 21/2000) was denounced by both the opposition MDC and by the Zimbabwe Confederation of Trade Unions (ZCTU), on behalf of its 197 000 registered members. The ZCTU threatened a national stayaway if the bill was passed. Munyaradzi Gwisai (MDC, Highfield) drew specific attention to the harm done to farm-workers by ‘fast-track’ land resettlement.5 His motion to amend the bill was adopted. While dropping the previous draconian proposals against the leaders of collective industrial and/or anti-Government action, the bill as initially amended still proposed to give the responsible minister the power to de-register the organisations involved. The requirement for a majority vote before any strike action was reportedly condemned by the Public Service Association (PSA) as contrary to ILO regulations.6 The ZCTU also demanded an unqualified right to strike in accordance with ILO conventions. Sections 3 and 12 of the new bill were rejected by the PLC as contravening workers’ constitutional rights to freedom of association and assembly. In the absence of both other members, the PLC chair, Eddison Zvobgo, tried to withdraw their adverse report, but the motion was defeated and the issue adjourned.7 It will be discussed again in the current session of Parliament. When Parliament rejects a SI, the President ‘shall forthwith’ gazette its repeal. Among the SIs rejected were some sponsored by the State President using his Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, such as SI 222E/1999 (Capital Gains Withholding Tax) Regulations. Most of Zanu-PF’s dissenting MPs who voted this measure down subsequently lost their seats in Parliament, either through the preliminary selection processes within the party (its ‘primaries’) or by defeat in the election itself. However, Parliament has not objected to other presidential SIs which have later been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They include SI 318/2000, by which the President purported to cancel the MDC’s electoral challenges in 38 constituencies, and Justice minister Patrick Chinamasa accused the PLC of wrongly ‘failing to distinguish what are constitutional matters and what are matters of policy with which they do not agree’. He averred that s20(2)(b)(iv) of the Constitution, in allowing for its regulation, clearly permits ‘any monopoly’ in the fields of broadcasting or television, and that the Supreme Court had ‘no right to change a constitution’ in striking down that monopoly (Parliamentary Debates 27,60:6273). 2 Parliamentary Debates 27,50:5066-80. 3 Dismissed by one Zanu-PF MP as ‘merely a variation of the same group that is the same members of the NCA, MMPZ etc’ (Parliamentary Debates 27,60:6437). 4 Parliamentary Debates 27,60:6223, 6333. 5 Parliamentary Debates 27,41:4217, 4228-9. 6 The Herald 12.3.01. 7 Parliamentary Debates 27,69:7269-87. 1 12