Acrobat PDF - Kubatana

Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum
Torture By State Agents In Zimbabwe
TORTURE DURING 1999 AND 2000
The situation did not improve during 1999 and deteriorated massively during 2000. In 1999, there was
the notorious case of the torture of the two Zimbabwe Standard journalists, the late Mr Mark Chavunduka
and Mr Ray Choto. Despite apparent acceptance by the State that torture had taken place, no action was
taken against the perpetrators and indeed no action has taken place to date, even in the face of High
Court and Supreme Court rulings. 5
The Human Rights Forum continued to represent victims from the Food Riots in civil actions and, during
1999 and 2000, added other cases to the list. In several of the cases, the judges of the High Court
strongly criticised the conduct of the police 6 and generally the lawyers from the Human Rights Forum,
acting for the victims, were able to obtain judgments against the police and the army. These judgments
indicated a considerable need for reform in the police and for strong disciplinary action to be taken
against the perpetrators. Regrettably, the Human Rights Forum has no evidence that the police took any
steps towards reform, nor is there any credible evidence that any disciplinary action was instituted.
The comments of the Legal Unit of the Human Rights Forum in its 1999 annual report are instructive
against today’s background and provided a serious warning of what has come about:
What has been of even greater concern for human rights in Zimbabwe has been the re-emergence of political
torture and the government’s attitude to this in 1999. In the wake of the kidnapping and torture of Mark
Chavunduka and Ray Choto by the Zimbabwe military all civil society made calls to the government to
respect the rule of law, condemn this illegal action and ensure that the perpetrators were brought to book.
The Government’s contempt for the rule of law even forced judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court
into the unprecedented move of writing to the President to express their concern. None of these concerted
actions had borne any fruit by the end of the year.
The President, the Attorney-General, senior Ministers and members of the Parliament have all made
statements condoning the actions of the military and none have publicly retracted these. Thus the Judiciary
remain to some extent at loggerheads with the Executive and the Parliament which does not bode well for the
future. The perpetrators remain at large with no credible attempt at investigations as far as this can be
established. It was gratifying, however, to see that the Minister of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of
Police took very seriously the death threats against Ray Choto and Basildon Peta.
The importance of these attitudes of the President and the government to the torture of Chavunduka and
Choto must be seen in relation to the other cases seen in 1999 and also to the riots cases. When government
itself shows no will to investigate or control state-sponsored violence and torture it is a signal to all state
agencies that a degree of practical impunity exists. This is so crucial in Zimbabwe where impunity for
genocide and gross human rights violations have been the norm rather than the exception. In 1999 there was
no sense that government saw human rights violations in a serious light.
The cases seen by the Human Rights Legal Unit show a worrying trend in the type of torture now being seen.
There is an apparent trend towards the police using forms of torture that are more difficult to detect initially.
Here the use of electrical shock and “falanga” or beatings on the soles of the feet must be highlighted and
5 See Chavunduka & Anor v Commissioner of Police & Anor 2000 (1) ZLR 418 (S), in particular at page 420D.
6 See for example Musadzikwa v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 2000 (1) ZLR 405 (H) and Mugadza v Minister of
Home Affairs & Anor HH-140-2001.
8