Independence of the NPA and due process questioned in the Tendai Biti case Opposition MDC Alliance party Vice-Chairperson Tendai Biti was charged for contravening the Electoral Act after he allegedly unlawfully and unofficially announced the 30 July presidential election results. On 10 December Biti’s lawyers succeeded in having Prosecutor Michael Reza removed as the lead prosecutor on the basis that he was biased and unsuitable to preside over his prosecution. This was after the prosecutor reportedly sent a message to Thabani Mpofu, the head of the Special Anti-Corruption Unit in the President’s Office, criticising the Magistrate’s ruling allowing media practitioners to live stream trial proceedings. The message which was shown in court read; “Cde Mpofu, it’s Reza, how are you. Another strange ruling by the magistrate trying Tendai Biti. They applied for live streaming of the case, with cameras and journalists in court and proceedings beamed all over the world. She has just agreed to that without authority of her boss the Chief Justice. She is either very brave or very stupid or both kkkkkk.” Biti’s lawyers charged that Reza’s conduct and message was contemptuous of the ongoing court proceedings and should be investigated by ZRP officers and also insinuated that judicial officers lack independence as they should consult the Chief Justice before passing any decisions. Biti also challenged the improper splitting of charges in the case, as well as the jurisdiction of the court on the basis that he was unlawfully brought into Zimbabwe from Zambia in violation of the deportation and asylum laws of Zambia and of an order of court issued by the High Court in Zambia in breach of international law regarding the extradition of people facing offences of a political nature. The Magistrate granted an application allowing accredited media practitioners to carry out live streaming of court proceedings during Biti’s trial. Prior to that the court on 15 November 2018 had allowed Tendai Biti to get his passport which had been surrendered as a bail condition, to attend a crucial continental meeting in Uganda after vetoing a decision by Acting Prosecutor-General Kumbirai Hodzi, who had turned down his request for the temporary release of his passport to allow him to travel. demonstrate and petition enshrined in the Constitution.14 The Court found that the blanket ban in section 27 was unconstitutional because it had a dragnet effect, which completely nullified the fundamental right to demonstrate and petition. Few people were in fact charged under POSA. Most were charged under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which Act still has constitutionally offensive provisions. Primarily, the offences of public violence (section 36), promoting public violence (section 37) and 15 subversion (section 22) were invoked. Another often abused law was section 33 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], which carries the offence of undermining the authority of or insulting the President. This provision stifles freedom of expression, legitimate feedback, fair comment and truth- Problematic Laws During 2018, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and Public Order and Security Act (POSA) remained in statute books in their repressive nature. This appeared to reflect absence of political will for genuine reforms to ensure that the promises of the Constitution are enjoyed by all and sundry. Instead, the culture of cutting back on the Constitution was still prevalent, through legislation, court rulings and undemocratic practices. In October the full bench of the Constitutional Court per Justice Rita Makarau declared that section 27 of POSA which granted wide powers to the police to ban demonstrations for periods of up to one month in the interests of the preservation of public order was an unjustifiable infringement on the right to 14. Democratic Assembly for Restoration and Empowerment & 3 Ors v Saunyama N.O & 3 Ors CCZ 9-2018. 15. Section 22 violates the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (both of which Zimbabwe is a party to), including the rights of persons to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; article 19 ICCPR), freedom of assembly (article 11 ACHPR; 21 ICCPR) article, freedom of association (article 10 ACHPR; article 22 ICCPR), and the right to political participation (article 25 ICCPR). 27 STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT ZIMBABWE 2018