Intelligence service The intelligence service – the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO) – does not feature in the present Constitution at all. It is not set up by statute. Indeed, the only reference in the statute law of Zimbabwe to this organization is in the Provincial Councils and Administration Act, which provides that the local senior CIO officer must be a member of the provincial development committee. Executive’s Powers It can be seen that the Executive, in the form of the President, has considerable direct and indirect power over the security services. We will now consider the extent to which the Executive should have such powers, then look at the constitutions of other countries and see whether such powers are given to the Executive in those countries. It should, however, be obvious that different considerations apply to the Prison Service, the Police Force, the Intelligence Service and the Defence Forces. Some general principles The security services and the intelligence service are not employed to protect the interests of any particular political party; they are employed to serve the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. This much is stated in the present Constitution. The Defence Forces exist to defend Zimbabwe [they should not be used on foreign adventures which have nothing to do with the security of Zimbabwe and which are not a consequence of any treaty or other international obligations]. The function of the Police Force has already been mentioned. The Constitutions of Kenya and South Africa put the matter beyond any argument. Both Constitutions impose general constraints over all the security services of their countries. The requirement to act within the law, including international law, is stressed. The Kenyan Constitution requires that national security “shall be pursued in compliance with the law and with the utmost respect for the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms”. The Kenyan and South African Constitutions make it quite clear that the service services must be non-partisan, and should not prejudice a legitimate political party, nor further the interests of any political party. Prison Service Prisons are part of the justice system and are established for no other purpose. Arguably the prison service need not be in the Constitution at all as it is not part of the security services. That the prison service is part of the justice system is shown by the fact that the responsible minister is the Minister of Justice, not the Minister of Defence. It could also be argued that, to some extent, the Prison Service is a part of the civil service, albeit in uniform and subject to separate discipline. In view of the specialist nature of the Prison Service’s tasks, it is appropriate that there should be a Prison Service Commission separate from the Public Service Commission, composed of suitably qualified persons. These could include relevant public servants, former prison officers, and representatives of such bodies as prisoners’ aid societies and prison reform societies. The functions of the Commission should be wider than they are at present; they should be similar to the functions of the Public Service Commission. 67