REDRESS/AMANI had fought to maintain white-minority rule or by those who had fought to attain black-majority rule. 41 After winning the election, Mugabe explicitly stated that his Government would pursue a policy of reconciliation and nation-building. One result was that a considerable number of people directly or indirectly responsible for gross human rights abuses on the RF side not only remained in the country but also continued in or were given positions of authority, and were soon to commit similar crimes again. 42 Nobody who had been involved in often brutal incidents within the liberation movements was called to account either, and such people were also given places in the State machinery. Nothing was done to investigate and document what happened during this period by holding public hearings and encouraging victims to relate their experiences. 43 The 1980 Lancaster House Constitution contains a comprehensive list of human rights. However, there were serious restrictions from the start: for the first five years of independence no pre-existing law in conflict with the Declaration of Rights could be struck down,44 most of the repressive security laws were retained, 45 and the state of emergency continued uninterrupted. There was little public revelation and protest against the torture and other gross human rights abuses of Gukurahundi.46 With the signing of the 1987 Unity Accord, the pattern set at independence was repeated: amnesties for the dissidents 47 and the security forces48 meant nobody was held accountable. During the more ‘tolerant’ (approximately ten year) period which followed, sporadic attempts were made to begin building less violent state authorities. As a de facto 41 Both white and black personnel in the Rhodesian forces had committed most atrocities, but the liberation movements themselves were by no means blameless, as they too had abused the civilian population. There had also been periodic fierce fighting between Zanla and Zipra forces in training camps and in the field, as well as bitter and violent internal disputes within the military organisations and within their parent political bodies. 42 See Breaking the Silence (supra) at p. 26: “ The very men who had been responsible for inhuman and degrading torture in the 1970s used exactly the same methods to torture civilians in the 1980s.” 43 Two amnesties were granted by the British Government acting through the Governor, Lord Soames, who had resumed de jure control of the territory. He issued Ordinance 3/1979 (date of commencement 21 December 1979) and Ordinance 12/1980 (date of commencement 21 March 1980). These became the Amnesty Act [Chapter 9:02] and the Amnesty (General Pardon) Act [Chapter 9:03] respectively. 44 Section 26 (2)(b) as read with Section 26 (3)(b) of the Lancaster House Constitution. These were later removed when no longer relevant. 45 In particular the draconian Law and Order (Maintenance) Act [Chapter 11: 07]. This was the central legislative weapon used by the white-minority to repress African nationalism. Its promulgation in 1960 pre-dated UDI by five years, and it was frequently amended to give wider and wider powers to the government and to narrow access to the courts. During the 1960 Parliamentary debate on the Bill a government member made the following contribution: “I have often wondered whether there has not been a particular angle of thought in regard to the question of human rights, the result of which has been to extend to people a right which is not really theirs. I believe we cannot apply to those who are backward and have cannibalistic tendencies the principles that are enjoyed by those who have reached a particularly high stage of development” : see The Law and Order (Maintenance) Act-An Anthology of Horrors? J. R. Devittie, Bulletin of the Public Prosecutors’ Association of Zimbabwe, (Harare), Vol 1, No. 2, March 1987, p. 3 (Editorial). As a judge later said who resigned in protest when the Bill became law: “ It almost appeared as though someone had sat down with the Declaration of Human Rights and deliberately scrubbed out each in turn.”(Sir Robert Tredgold, the then Chief Justice) - Ibid. at p. 4. The Act was eventually repealed in 2002, only to be replaced by the almost equally repressive Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:17]. This Act is commonly referred to as POSA. For a comprehensive analysis of POSA see Derek Matyszak Democratic Space and State Security: Zimbabwe’s Public order and Security Act, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Zimbabwe Human Rights Bulletin Issue No 11, Harare, September 2004, p. 80. 46 Some local church groups, such as the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, protested strongly and acted vigorously to try to stop what was happening, as did a number of international NGOs such as Amnesty International. Zimbabwe lawyers were largely silent, including the Law Society of Zimbabwe, which did not issue a single statement condemning the widespread and gross human rights violations taking place in the country. 47 General Notice 257A of 1988. 48 General Notice 424A of 1990. 9