By A Correspondent- Jonathan Moyo, a former Information Minister now in exile, claimed that the conviction and imprisonment of opposition leader Jacob Ngarivhume signifies a regression of Zimbabwe’s judiciary system back to the Gukurahundi era.
The Gukurahundi era was a period of political violence from 1983 to 1987. The Zimbabwean military killed an estimated 10 000 to 20 000 people, mostly ethnic Ndebele, under the pretext of suppressing a rebellion by armed dissidents and due to political tensions between ZANU-PF and PF-ZAPU parties.
Jonathan Moyo’s comments came after Jacob Ngarivhume was convicted of incitement to public violence and sentenced to four years in jail for a tweet he posted in July 2020. In the tweet, Ngarivhume called for a national shutdown to protest against poor leadership by the ZANU PF-led government.
In a Twitter post seen by Pindula News, Moyo said it is disheartening that Jacob Ngarivhume was convicted and sentenced to effectively serve three years in jail for tweets he posted in July 2020, which called for constitutionally protected peaceful protests.
Moyo said the sentence was given by a Harare Magistrate who is obligated to uphold and protect the constitution, and Ngarivhume’s tweet and video posted on July 8, 2020, are still available on Twitter and require no interpretation.
Moyo added that considering sections 56, 58, 59, 60, and 61 of the 2013 Constitution, it is surprising that a magistrate would be deceived by political prosecutors into making a political decision to convict and give a harsh sentence to an electoral opponent of the sitting president, just three months before a general election. This decision undermines the judiciary and damages its reputation. He added:
Truth be told, the judiciary’s shocking mishandling of Bill of Rights cases these days is eerily reminiscent of the gukurahundi years, when the Rhodesian State of Emergency retained between 1980 and 1990 was ruthlessly enforced.
But there was an important difference then, now lost to the judiciary.
While government used a decade of the retention of the Rhodesian State of Emergency for political purposes against targeted political enemies – especially Zapu and the population in Matabeleland and parts of the Midlands – the judiciary then stood firm as the protector of the Bill of Rights and defender of human rights and freedoms.
Ironically, this was under a Lancaster Constitution whose Bill of Rights was in fact meant for the white minority and was entrenched only for 10 years precisely to give the white minority time to either take the gap to apartheid South Africa or the white Commonwealth countries, if not back to Britain itself.
The point here is that during the gukurahundi years – in which the order of the day was the Rhodesian State of Emergency whose effect was the obliteration of the Lancaster Bill of Rights – draconian convictions and sentences like the one imposed on Ngarivhume by Magistrate Feresi Chakanyuka were unheard of.
Moyo said it is a fact that individuals sacrifice their freedom when they join a group, as they must give up some rights for the common good. This means that threats to human rights usually come from the groups individuals belong to, and the worst threats come from the State and its government, as they hold a monopoly on violence.
Ge added that it follows, therefore, that all governments are a threat to human rights, but in constitutional democracies with a justiciable Bill of Rights, the judiciary, not the government, is responsible for protecting human rights. If the judiciary fails to do so, it is up to the people themselves to take action. Moyo concluded:
In Zimbabwe today the judiciary has tragically abdicated its constitutional responsibility and duty to guarantee and protect human rights and freedoms; hence the tragedy now happening to the Jobs (Job Sikhala) and Jacobs in the nation’s midst, which tragedy has exposed everyone’s constitutional rights and freedoms to jeopardy!
Zimbabwe is scheduled to hold harmonised elections sometime between July 26 and August 26 this year.