Exposing Police Falsehoods: Unveiling the Truth Behind Alleged Biased Treatment of Political Gatherings

By Farai D Hove | In a recent report by the state media, it was claimed that the police had banned more gatherings of the ruling ZANU PF party than those of its main rival, the Citizens Coalition For Change (CCC) party. These allegations were backed by statistics provided by Dr. Gerald Gwinji, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage. However, a closer examination of the situation reveals some serious inconsistencies and raises doubts about the accuracy of the claims.

According to Dr. Gwinji, political gatherings in the country are governed by the Constitution and the Maintenance of Peace and Security Act. All political players are required to comply with these provisions and notify the police of their public meetings to avoid clashes and public disorders.

The alleged statistics provided by Dr. Gwinji state that since January 2023, the police received 1,437 notifications from ZANU PF to hold public gatherings. Out of these, 1,351 were compliant with legal requirements, while 86 were not approved. On the other hand, the CCC made 410 applications, with 345 of them being compliant and 65 being declined.

At first glance, these figures might seem convincing, but upon further examination, some key issues arise:

1. Lack of Verified Evidence: The state media report claims that the statistics were provided by Dr. Gwinji during a briefing of observers and diplomatic missions on the Government’s state of preparedness ahead of the harmonized elections. However, there is no mention of any independent verification of these numbers. The absence of verified evidence casts doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the claims made.

2. Biased Approval Process: While the statistics indicate that ZANU PF had more gatherings approved than CCC, it does not shed light on the reasons behind the denials. There might be legitimate concerns regarding the police’s approval process, as the CCC has claimed bias against them. Without transparent and impartial review mechanisms, these numbers can be misleading and indicative of potential bias.

3. Incomplete Picture: The report fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of other political parties’ gatherings. It merely mentions the numbers for the CCC and ZANU PF, leaving out crucial data for comparison. This incomplete picture prevents a fair assessment of the situation and raises suspicions about cherry-picking data to support a particular narrative.

4. No Contextual Information: The report lacks context and explanations for the disparities in approvals and denials. There could be valid reasons for certain gatherings being denied, such as failure to meet legal requirements or potential security risks. Without this information, it is challenging to draw conclusive judgments.

In light of these inconsistencies and shortcomings in the state media report, it becomes evident that the claimed bias against the CCC cannot be adequately substantiated. The lack of verified evidence, biased approval process, incomplete data, and absence of contextual information undermine the credibility of the statistics presented by Dr. Gwinji.

In a democracy, it is essential to ensure a level playing field for all political parties, and this includes fair treatment of their public gatherings. To foster public trust in the electoral process, it is crucial for the police and government institutions to be transparent, accountable, and unbiased in their decisions.

Moving forward, it is imperative for the relevant authorities to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into these allegations. An independent body or impartial observers should be involved in assessing the police’s handling of public gatherings to ensure fairness and adherence to the rule of law.

In conclusion, the state media report’s claims of biased treatment by the police towards the CCC compared to ZANU PF raise legitimate concerns about the transparency and fairness of the approval process. Until concrete evidence is provided, it is premature to draw definitive conclusions. However, it is evident that there is a need for more scrutiny and oversight to ensure equal treatment of all political parties and foster a democratic environment in the country.