Some interesting titbits to mull over voting processes in Zimbabwe

Titbit One

Deriving from the statistical figures of the 2012 Census there are approximately 6 070 537 adults in Zimbabwe. This means approximately 52% of the total Zimbabwean population are above 18 years of age. I am saying approximately here because up to date, ZimStats-the body mandated to conduct national Census- has only released the “preliminary” results from the 2012 Census and has not released all the full figures of that exercise, despite that the Census was concluded in September 2012; 9 months ago. How efficient, right!

Titbit Two

Zimbabwe has a total population of about 13.2 million. Of these, the RG says 5 867 642 were registered to vote as of October 2010. This means 87.8% of all eligible voters were registered to vote then. On the other hand Kenya has about 44 million citizens and of these about 12 616 627 were registered to vote in the 2013 elections. Now this is interesting, right? Is it because Zimbabweans are more educated about the importance of participating in ‘democratic’ processes than Kenyans? Is it that Kenyans are apathetic and do not engage political processes? Could it be that Kenyans were discouraged by the 2007/2008 electoral violence? But we also had a good share of that, so then was their violence worse than ours?  Do we as Zimbabweans have more faith in elections and so we always want to have our voices heard through the ballot? Or is it just as simple as that these figures are not accurate? Is it possible that some people registered to vote never registered to vote but were put on the voters’ roll by the Registrar General since he has all their birth, death, citizenship details as well?

A picture that I took of the scores of voters who thronged the Ongata Rongai Open Market in Nairobi, Kenya Polling Station to vote in March 2013

Titbit Three

According to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission 3 316 082 Zimbabweans voted in the 16 March 2013 Referendum for a new Constitution of Zimbabwe. Of these, 3 079 966 voted ‘Yes’, 179 489 voted ‘No.’ Very impressive, right? I do wonder where these people came from though because having observed the process, the turnout-at least in Harare- was very low. On the other hand in Kenya 66.9% voted ‘Yes’, 30.7 voted ‘No’ and voter turnout was at 72.2%. Seems we Zimbabweans love our new constitution more than the Kenyans love theirs. Is it because our new Constitution is better than the Kenyan one? Is it because we yearned for a new Constitution more than they did? Could this have something to do with the fact that Zimbabweans hardly knew what they were voting for whereas Kenyans had several months in which they were intensively educated and informed about the contents of their Constitution and hence voting in Kenya was from a fully informed position?

Titbit four

According to a voters’ roll audit conducted by the Research and Advocacy Unit in October 2010, there were 41, 119 people aged over 100 years on the Voters Roll. It seems Zimbabwe is a healthy nation full of politically conscious and really old citizens, who want to stake their claim on the political landscape. I would love to interview all these people and find out what voting has meant to them for the past +/- 85 years, including the years when they were dis-enfranchised under white supremacist rule, their experiences with voting in an independent Zimbabwe and voting in all the subsequent elections.

Titbit Five

Did you know that the Registrar General is in charge of recording births? He is also in charge of recording deaths and is also in charge of awarding citizenship. Further, the RG is also in charge of the registration of voters; although under the transitional provisions of the new constitution such registration is supposed to be done under the supervision of ZEC. What does this mean for people considered to be aliens? What does this mean for the removal of dead people off the voters’ roll? What does it mean for the accurate recording of people eligible to vote? Is there enough supervision of these extensive powers? What safeguards are there for the abuse of power and manipulation of the voters’ roll?

Titbit Six

Did you know that before any voter is removed from the voters’ roll the Registrar General must send written notification of the intent to so remove?  This includes even people who are presumed dead. This is to allow the person to appeal the decision in case they have reason to believe that they should remain on the voters’ roll or in case they are actually not dead as presumed. Does anyone know if such notifications were given when the Registrar General removed the 969 620 ‘dead’ people that he removed from the voters’ roll as announced by the Herald on Friday 3 May 2013?

Beyond rights to necessities: Water Wars

On the SWRadio Hotseat programme of 6 June 2013, Violet Gonda- the hostess-asked the Mayor of Harare, Mr Muchadeyi Masunda a very important question: When can the water woes ravaging Harare residents be expected to end. The mayor responded saying;

“Once all the stakeholders who owe money start paying their bills and prioritising payment of their bills in the same way as they do with their cell phones and DSTV, we’ll see a considerable improvement of the situation.”

The Mayor’s response upset me because it is wrong on so many levels;

1. It implies that the reason why there is no water is because residents are not paying, and that residents have their priorities skewed paying off DSTV and cell-phones instead of water bills. Where does the Mayor place the poor who cannot afford to pay for water? Did he also take into consideration that most residents only stopped paying once they realised that the City Council expected payment for services not rendered.
2. It transfers the responsibility of ensuring water availability to the residents’ financial capacity.  The reality is that the system we have in place demands that water be supplied by the city councils or government. It is their responsibility to fund-raise and be innovative at it, to ensure that water supply systems are adequately  financed. 
3. It implies that the running of water supplies is wholly dependent on the payment of water bills by residents. Is it not the duty of government to have a budget for water? How would Mr Masunda explain the recent MDG report findings that 65% of rural water points are not functional? Should rural people also pay for the repair of boreholes in the same way that urban people supposedly pay for water treatment chemical and repair of pipes? If so, what then is the government’s role; just to collect our monies? To me the water issue is a clear indicator of government failure to prioritise basic necessities for the people they purport to represent.

Excuse my emotive approach but I thought we had a right to water!

Yes we do have the right to water under our Constitution. However with rights come obligations; right. The state assumes obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil these human rights. But unfortunately for us the right to water is a social economic right and even under international law states are permitted to ensure that this right is achieved “progressively” meaning that they can be excused for not making it an immediate reality for all citizens. “Subject to the availability of resources,” the Constitution says.

But is it really possible for any individual to live without water?

Somewhere in Mexico-just over a month ago, I had a sit down with Oscar Olivera. Now who is he, you will ask? I know him as a warm, reflective individual, whose quiet strength made me feel comfortable to ask him anything yet his humble demeanour commanded utmost respect. I also know Oscar as the man who, in 2000, in the Latin American state of Bolivia, led -together with others-a fight against a strong, powerful multinational engineering company called Betchel. Betchel had privatised all the water in Bolivia  including the rain water and unsurprisingly, the government of Bolivia had agreed to this idea under the “guidance” of the World Bank. Within a week of taking over the water management the tariffs were hiked by over 50% making unlimited access to water a privilege for the few who had the necessary funds. The laws demanded that citizens acquire a permit to collect rain water [Who knew that even rain water could be privatised, I mean who died and made these people God!!!] Chen Blanc at the School of Authentic Journalism interviewed Oscar and this interview sheds light into the man and his life struggle.

But what I got from the conversations I had with Oscar was that the ‘rights’ discourse is simply inadequate when describing the importance of water to humanity.  He said,

“To guarantee water is to guarantee the continuation of humanity itself. Water is the human being; in the same way a tree would die with no water is the same way human life would wither without water. Why then should it be acceptable, that access to such a core element to our existence, should be conditional or controlled by another human being or be the subject of profit by a private company?” [I would add or be made conditional upon the payment of rates to municipal authorities]

Fundamental to Oscar’s assertion is the fact that water is a core need and no human being should be denied water. Oscar underscored the importance of the recognition of the “right to water” but emphasised that this is not enough.

“In places like Equador and Bolivia they have introduced water as a right. That is good progress but it could also be problematic. The concept of a right implies a corresponding obligation. By who? By the state? What if the state fails-then what?”

Oscar’s words came back to me when I heard what the Mayor of Harare said.  I am a staunch human rights advocate, but those words made me realise that the right to water is meaningless when citizens actually do not have water.

What does the right to water mean when half the time no water runs through our taps, as municipal water is in short supply? What does it mean to the mother who has to run a household with no water for nine consecutive days? In the Eastern suburbs of Harare, residents are reporting that they are getting water once or twice a month-is that what the right to water entails? And in the northern suburbs most people do not receive municipal water from the City of Harare at all- do they also have a right to water?

Is it meaningful to say we have a right to water when we are buying water to drink because tap water is hazardous to our health? Can we say government is fulfilling its obligations when, were it not for UNICEF’s WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) programme in some areas there would be no communal boreholes that are servicing stricken suburbs?

Yet religiously, the city councils send us exorbitant bills to pay. In most affluent suburbs, people have drilled their own boreholes and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) has followed up to say “Ground water belongs to us so you must also pay for it.” And so in addition to receiving bills and paying monthly rates for the municipal water they NEVER have, residents also pay quarterly rates for domestic boreholes.

In some rural areas, citizens are clamouring for boreholes, river water is not safe to drink-if it is there at all, yet they supposedly have a ‘right’ to water. In other rural areas, citizens have boreholes but the ‘right’ to use the borehole is given to that one community; it does not translate into a right for other communities. Once rights are mentioned then there are power relations at play. There is also an internalisation of individual ownership of resources and privatisation of water either as individual beings or as individual communities. Boreholes belong to specific villages, dams belong to their communities. Anyone who tries to gain access without consulting with the local community is violating a communal right. Communities can block access to water from each other on the basis of ‘rights.’

I recall Oscar’s words;

“If we are going to talk of rights, so then let them be rights from an indigenous perspective where we grant ourselves rights, they are not given to us. We claim access to water as of necessity not as of right.”

There must be no pre-condition when it comes to accessing water.  As Oscar revealed to me, what they rejected in Cochabamba, Bolivia in the privatisation of their water was essentially the plunder and exploitation that national corporations believed could exert with no consequences. What we should also reject in Zimbabwe is a mismanagement of the resources available to us by those in power, limiting their ability to give us access to clean and safe water. What we should also reject is their frustration of individuals’ attempts at providing water for themselves by continuously putting stringent measures for digging wells or drilling boreholes.

Oscar’s favourite phrase about the communality of water rings true in my head and I hope it does in yours too “Water is not a commodity; it is a common good.”

New Bottles:Old Wine- Looking at the Constitutional Court Elections judgement

*This Blog has been cross-posted from the RAU blog*

On Friday 31^st May, 2013 the newly established Constitutional Court issued its first judgment, that is the case of Jealousy Mbizvo Mawarire  v Robert Gabriel Mugabe N.O. and Ors CCZ1/13. The judgment concerned an urgent application by Mr. Mawarire, brought on the basis of a claim that the President was constitutionally obliged to set the dates for Zimbabwe’s next general election no later than the day after the 29^th June, 2013 when Parliament reaches the end of its constitutionally prescribed five year term. The failure to do so, Mr. Mawarire maintained, was a breach of his constitutional rights and would have the unconstitutional effect of the country being governed without a Parliament.

The case had various bizarre and curious facets even before the judgment was delivered. President Mugabe had repeatedly stated his desire to hold elections as soon as possible after the passage of the new constitution into law on the 22^nd May, 2013 and well before October 29^th, 2013, the date the MDC formations had contended was the latest possible constitutional date for the poll.

Thus the immediate question which arose was, if this was the President’s desire, why did he not exercise his presidential prerogative to dissolve Parliament and announce the earlier election date? It is clear that Parliament was required to bring the new constitution into being, and hence Parliament could not have been dissolved before the Constitutional Bill became law. However, did this in any way mean that the President could not have proclaimed the dissolution of Parliament at a future date that allowed ample time for Constitutional Bill to be passed?

There were also several other complications related to the proclamation of elections:

1. The MDC formations and SADC all insisted that various reforms had to take place before elections
2. Prior to the adoption of the new constitution, it was a constitutional requirement that the MDC-T Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, had to be consulted on the date of the dissolution of Parliament, if it were to be dissolved by proclamation rather than by automatic dissolution through the passing of time

It would not have been politically expedient for the President to have brought the application before the Constitutional Court himself. However, a, Mr. Mawarire stepped up to the plate and brought the application “against” the President.  Unsurprisingly, the President’s “opposing” paper, rather than disputing the Applicant’s case, as is usual, wholeheartedly agreed with his argument, though did not it seems, having agreed with the Applicant’s interpretation of the law, offer any reasons why he had then failed to comply with it

The issue before the nine member bench of the Supreme Court, sitting as the Constitutional Court, was to determine the chronological parameters mandated by the constitution for the holding of a general election following the dissolution of Parliament. The dissolution of parliament can take place in one of two ways;

1. Either following a proclamation by the President, or
2. Through the effluxion of time when the five year term of Parliament ends.

The determination of the issue revolved around the interpretation of subsection 58(1) of the old constitution, as read with subsections 63(4) and 63(7), which are still to apply until the new constitution becomes fully operational.

Section 58(1) provides as follows:

A general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under section 63(7) or, as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63(4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, fix.

The judges of the new Constitutional Court seized with the matter were not fresh judicial appointees.. Chief Justice Chidyausiku wrote the judgment for the majority.. In the judgment  he construed section 58(1) so that its meaning became ambiguous. This was done by violating some very basic rules of grammar in the following way.

He inserted colons into the section (where none existed in the original) ostensibly to highlight what he claimed was the ambiguous nature of the provision, but in factto creating an ambiguity that did not exist before.

The insertion of punctuation can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence, for example:

‘While the mother was cooking the baby her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

When punctuated, the sentence is easier to read.

‘While the mother was cooking, the baby, her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

But leave out a comma and the text becomes more sinister

‘While the mother was cooking the baby, her brother and the dog were sleeping.’

By inserting a colon after “on” in section 58(1), Chief Justice Chidyausiku altered the meaning of the provision to read:

          58(1) A general election and elections for members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on:

i)                    such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under section 63(7) or,

ii)                  as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63(4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, fix.

 By the insertion of the colons, Justice Chiyausiku creates a new meaning for section 58(1), which gives the Applicant the desired result. That meaning is that the President must have set the election date within a period of four months before the dissolution of Parliament and that an election should be held upon the dissolution of Parliament.

This is not what the law (without the colons) says. The law says an election shall be held within a period of four months AFTER the President issues the proclamation Parliament dissolving parliament or within a period of four months AFTER Parliament dissolves automatically at the end of its five year term. That five year term  ends on 29 June and the law allows the President to continue in office, in this event, after Parliament has been dissolved, but with the requirement that he to set an election date within four months from the time of such dissolution..

Further, the Chief Justice in coming to his conclusion made the assertion that reading the ‘after’ to mean precisely that i.e. ‘after’ would create a ‘mind boggling’ situation in which the country existed without Parliament. This is not a sound argument. The Chief Justice knows very well that:

1. In the past the date for an election has always been announced AFTER, and not BEFORE, dissolution of Parliament which has meant that the President previously has continued to be in office without a ParliamentThe Constitution, in fact, specifically allows for Parliament to be ‘prorogued’  (delayed) for periods of as much as 180 days,[1] and the power to prorogue Parliament for such an extended period  lies with the President under the current constitution.

2. The executive continued to function without legislative oversight for five months between the dissolution of Parliament for the March 2008 election and the start of the seventh Parliament in 2008 without anyone’s mind being boggled or any ruling of absurdity being made.

Even if this judgment is correct, the Chief Justice did not avert to some very important facts that may make it impossible for the President to comply with the 31 July deadline:

1. Provisions of the new constitution, which are effective from the date of publication, stipulate that there must be at least 44 days between the proclamation of the election dates and the Election Day itself.
2. The new constitution also provides that the Electoral Act cannot be changed once the election dates have been announced.
3. The Electoral Act must be amended to bring it into line with the new constitution, especially in regard to the introduction of a system of proportional representation.
4. The President cannot proclaim the election dates until the amendments to the Electoral Act have been finalised.
5. There is no guarantee that the amendments to the Electoral Act will be agreed upon  and finalised at least 44 days before the 31^st July, 2013. This means that the President may then either have to violate the constitutional requirement that 44 days elapse between the el^ectoral proclamation and the election itself, or fail to meet the 31^st July, 2013 deadline.

---

[1] Section 62(2) of the Constitution.

*This post was adapted from an Opinion Piece produced by Derek Matyszak. To read more follow this link on the RAU website.

10 reasons why June is such a special month

June is here. For some, it is the beginning of a new season, a chance to reshape their vision and see where they are with their new year’s resolutions-for what better time is there than the middle of the year  to take stock. June is the month of changeovers in real physical climatic terms. In the Northern hemisphere, their summer has begun while for us in the Southern hemisphere, our winter has begun. This month in history has recorded the number of things- some amazing, others tragic – that have happened/taken place shaping the history of my country, my continent and the world.

1. I was born in this month on the 28^th- the same day as Pope Paul IV (1476) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712)  one of the greatest philosophers in the world, Lamina Sankoh (1884)  one of the most famous Sierra Leonean politicians who advocated economic development of the black person and religious emancipation free from Western ideology , Chris Hani (1942) one of the most amazing brains behind South Africa’s anti apartheid struggle and leader of the South African Communist Party and Chief of staff of the Umkhonto weSizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress.
   

   Image Source: www. urbantimes.co

2. For women it is significant because in this month, on the 6^th in 1872, that one woman charted the way for the development of one of the most fundamental rights that any citizen is able to exercise. Most of us take it as a given. Some of us do not even exercise it yet some people fought hard for it-the right to vote. Susan Anthony mobilised a group of women to test their status as citizens by voting in the same manner as men even though they were not legally permitted to. Although they got arrested and fined for it, that initial step paved the way for the recognition, FOR THE FIRST TIME, 34 years later of women’s right to vote.
   

   Susan Anthony-Picture Credit http://www.timetoast.com

3. We commemorate so many important days, which are dear to my heart touching on many important issues affecting the lives of many African citizens such as protection of children, protection of  the  environment, ending child labour, addressing the plight of refugees, ending all forms of drug abuse and illicit trafficking as well as supporting victims of torture; with commemorations taking place on 1, 5, 12, 20 and 26  June respectively
4. It is the month in which a number of countries celebrate national days of great significance. On the African continent a number of countries declared their independence from colonial powers in the month of June. These are the Democratic Republic of Congo on 30 June 1960 declaring independence from the Belgians, Madagascar on 26 June in 1960 from the French, Djibouti on 27 June 1977 from the French, Mozambique on 25 June 1975 from the Portuguese, and Seychelles on June 29 1976 from the British. Globally other countries also celebrate significant national days. For instance Sweden celebrates its national day on the 6^th, the Philippines its Independence Day on the 12th, while the US and Finland celebrate their flag days on the 14^th and 24^th of June respectively.
5. It is the month in which Robert F Kennedy was shot, on the 5^th in 1968 and his death, combined with that of Martin Luther King earlier began a period in which the hope for reforms and lesser racial segregation of African- Americans that had been sparked seemed to take a backslide.
   

   Martin Luther King: Picture Credit newindependentwhig.blogspot.com

6. June is the month that brought an end to attempts by megalomaniacs to control and rule the world. Napoleon’s tyranny ended with the battle of Waterloo in central Belgium, on 18 June 1815, ending 23 years of warfare between France and the allied powers of Europe. On June 28 1919-my birthday too, oh well minus the year-the Treaty of Versailles was signed signifying the end of World War I.  The end of World War II was earmarked by, among other things, the Battle of Okinawa, Japan in which he allied forces on June 21, 1945 defeated the Japanese who were keys allies of the German Reich under Hitler.
7. To bring it closer to home June for me represents the sets of contradictions that make up the whole of my society. It was in June that land invasions, leading to the fast track land reform programme began. These invasions then led to the displacement of thousands of farm workers and predominantly white farmers. It built up into a food crisis with underproduction and underutilisation of the land leaving most farms derelict. It contributed to the economic meltdown that saw many Zimbabweans thrown into poverty. Yet for some-albeit few- that very same month represents the beginnings of black empowerment for they got the land that they had clamoured for since independence.
8. It was on 27 June 2007, that central bank governor Gideon Gono announced his decision to print an additional 1 trillion Zimbabwean dollars to pay civil servants’ and soldiers’ salaries that had been by 600% and 900% respectively one of the most ridiculous decisions that began a pattern of inflation in which increases in civil servants’ salaries automatically meant increases in the cost of all goods and services. For some that decision was premised on quick gains as a means to an end-pay civil servants-get votes from civil servants yet for others (the majority) it had lasting effects- a destabilised economy and a fragile currency that we cannot use even up till today.
9. June is the time I take to reflect on what being a hero means because it is the month when many Zimbabweans in 2008 sacrificed their lives for an ideal; an ideal that they had never experienced but hoped for and were willing to die for: Democracy. The death and devastation of the run up to the 27 June election “The Ides of June” as some call it remains fresh in the memories of many people. I remember those who lost limb and life, home and haven, peace of mind and sanctity of the body just so we could all live in peace with freedom and dignity.
10. But among the doom and gloom, we celebrate Black Music Month, a tradition born in the US to celebrate African American music and culture-embracing the beat of the drum, the shakers, the marimbas, kalimbas and udus.
    

    Mbira instrument. Picture Credit: commons.wikimedia.org

Indeed, June is special.

Lest we get caught napping!!

On Friday the 17^th of May 2013, the Parliament of Zimbabwe gazetted Statutory Instrument 68 of 2013. This piece of law contains regulations by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission- in line with the Zimbabwean Electoral Act- that govern processes of registration.

On Wednesday 22 May, I attended a huge civil society meeting of individuals and organisations allegedly working on elections and only 2 had seen, read and analysed the implications of that instrument to the conduct of elections. I am one of those who hadn’t read or applied my mind to this piece of law. Disappointing, yes, but tragic more like because it is through missing these fine details that we fail to interrogate the openness of electoral processes. It was through one of the 2 wise people who had read this piece of law that this idea came to me, to give a brief outline of some of the important provisions in this Act and a pseudo-analysis of the implications of Statutory Instrument 68 of 2013.

Accessing the voter’s roll

The law: Section 2 of the Act provides that an Electronic Voters’ Roll will be made available to anyone who wants it at the cost of US$5 per ward or $10 per constituency and the roll will only be available as a ward voters’ roll or a constituency voters’ roll.

Implications: This is somewhat of an improvement because previously the voters’ roll was available to the public at $15 per ward meaning that the national voters’ roll was available at a whooping $30 000. However, we currently have 210 constituencies in Zimbabwe. What that means is, for someone to have a complete national voters’ roll they must pay a total of $2100. Now the average Zimbabwean earns $300 a month. How on earth are they expected to fork out $2100 to pay for a voters’ roll? Some of you are probably asking, but why would an ordinary citizen want a national voters’ roll? Here is why:

i.            Access to the voters’ roll enables citizens to inspect the roll and confirm and validate their inclusion given that being on the voters’ roll enables them to exercise their constitutional right to vote and elect the leaders of their choice. Citizens need to ensure that they are not missing from the voters’ roll, that their names are spelt correctly, that their details are captured aptly and that they are placed in the right constituency.

ii.            Access to the voters’ roll enables citizens to detect irregularities that are currently being perpetuated under this whole veil of secrecy. For instance, there would be no dead people on the voter’s roll if it was readily available because the living relatives of the dead would notice the irregularity. Neither would there be more than 100 000 people, all born on the 1^st of January 1901 if all citizens had access to the roll because such a blatant irregularity would spark public outrage. It would also not be possible to inflate the number of voters in a given constituency if every citizen could scrutinise the roll.

iii.            The voters’ roll has useful details about population demographics that enable civic work to be done in a much easier and straight forward manner. For instance if you want to start a programme that benefits young women in peri-urban areas, through the voters’ roll you can know exactly which ones are the peri-urban areas, how many young women there are, where they are densely populated and where they are not and in so doing priority areas are easily identifiable. Besides civic work, the same information is useful for government’s social welfare agenda and I doubt very much that the roll is easily available to all civil servants within the Department of Social Welfare.

It is pretty obvious why the voters’ roll is a secret document: there is a bid to close out the public by those in power from influencing the transparency of voting processes and for as long as ZEC puts a price tag on the voters’ roll they are in cohorts with those who would want to steal elections through manipulation of the voters’ roll. That the roll is being sold is not only outrageous but also ridiculous given that its compilation was made possible through the use of public funds gathered from tax payers’ money?

Querying the voters’ roll

Section 3(7) of the Act provides that any objection to the retention of a name on the voters’ roll shall be charged at US$5 per name. What this means is that the ZEC is implying that they are NOT infallible, that they could NEVER make a mistake and that the voters’ roll is PERFECT. Therefore should any individual or organisation or political party have any reason to believe that a certain name on the voters’ roll should not be on the voters’ roll then they shall be charged if they want that name  to be removed, even if they are ABSOLUTELY right and that name should NOT be on the roll. Here is a good example of how ridiculous this provision is:

Imagine that I get a copy of the voters’ roll then find that my grandfather who passed away in 2007 is still on the voters’ roll. Should I file an objection to ZEC stating that my dead grandfather is still on the roll and should therefore be removed, ZEC will make me pay $5.

In other words citizens are being penalised for their vigilance and attempts at ensuring accountability and transparency. Does this make any sense?

I must point out however that the Act is not all doom and gloom. It makes some things about voter registration very clear.

Identity when registering

For instance Section 5 of the Regulations makes it very clear that a driver’s license is not a valid identity card for purposes of registration to vote and that only the following identity documents will enable people to register to vote:

1. A national ID card
2. A waiting pass- this is a type of document with the photograph of the person named that can be issued in terms of the National Registration Act. It simply confirms that the person who has it has applied for an ID, has not yet had the ID issued and confirms when the actual ID will be ready for collection. This is probably not as useful anymore nowadays as it used to be in the olden days as most ID’s are issued instantly.
3. A valid passport

Proof of residence when registering

Section 6 of the regulations also makes it clear that the following documents can suffice as proof of residence:

• Title deeds showing that you own the property
• A certificate of occupation of a specific property
• Any bill or statement that reflects your name on it. This could be a water bill, electricity bill, rates bill, telephone bill or credit store statements. So any statements from Edgars, Topics or such other chain stores telling you how much you still owe them for the clothes you bought is proof that you live where you say you live and it’s enough to get you registered to vote.
• A statement by your parents (if you live with them) or your landlord (if you are renting) or from your friend (if you also live with them) confirming that you do live with them. However you must also have either a copy of the title deeds or the certificate of occupation or a bill/statement from the address that you live at in the name of your parents, landlord or friend.
• If you live at a mine, school, hospital or such other institution then you must have a statement by the head of that institution confirming that you live there
• If you have none of these things then you can get a letter from your employer who can vouch for you that you live where you say you live because that is the address they have in your employee files
• Those living in the rural areas need a letter from either the headman or councillor or village head or the chief of the kraal from which they come
• If you live on a farm then you must get a letter from the farm owner confirming that you live on the farm
• If you live in resettlement areas then you must get a letter from the resettlement officer or produce an offer letter if you are a newly resettled farmer
• A hospital bill or a letter sent you via post but with stamp markings still on the envelope will work
• If all else fails then when you go to register you can ask to fill in an Affidavit  also know as a V.R.8 Form

So get going with your Topics/Barbours/Edgars credit statements to register to vote and if they ask you where you got that from tell them: Because MaDube said so.

Two struggles, One story

*The following post is based on a video that my colleagues and I- at the 2013 School of Authentic Journalism  produced- which we released today*

In 1985, in one of Africa’s most beautiful countries, but with arguably one of the ugliest histories ever recorded, Mkhuseli ‘Khusta’ Jack waged a war against a government devoid of humanity, a government that did not see anything wrong with segregating the majority of its population or deliberately keeping them rooted in poverty because they were black. Young and energetic, Khusta led an economic boycott of downtown white-owned businesses in Port Elizabeth to leverage black people’s demands for better treatment -humane treatment by the apartheid government of South Africa.

In the dizzying heights of Cochabamba, Bolivia, in 2000, Oscar Olivera together with others waged a popular resistance that came to be known as the Cochabamba Water Wars- a struggle against the privatisation of Bolivia’s water; including its rain water.

Both men mobilised, they rallied their people to take a stand, they stood their ground. They took a risk; their activities were daring, after all they were dealing with life and death matters. But what choice did they have? Was a life without water a choice? Was a life without freedom, dignity and justice a choice? And so they sacrificed; not only their time and energy but their lives; and they both won. Two heroes. Two histories. Two continents.  Two lands. One Story. One common thread- civil resistance- a testimony of the strength of strategic organising and community mobilisation.

 Here is their story …

Tapping the Power of Community to Pull the Plug

Originally published on Narco News

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Indeed, in civil disobedience lies the citizen’s power to reinstate sense and sensibility in governments by bringing attention to blatant and salient injustices and to hold governments accountable for their actions.

The following story by Felicity Clarke is based on the reflections of Renny Cushing; one of the key figures in the Clamshell Alliance; a movement that fought the construction of nuclear power projects in the United States in the late 1970s and early 1980. As Felicity puts it, “Cushing was effective in organising a movement that played a major role in freezing the construction of new nuclear power projects in the United States for decades. Through the use of multiple strategies, tactics and activities, most notably the mass occupation of the Seabrook power plant construction site in New Hampshire in April 1977 — in which 1,414 were arrested —and the original (and successful) demonstration on Wall Street in 1979, the anti-nuclear movement assimilated local concerns and nationwide sentiment to effect real change.”

Read More…Narco News: Organizer Renny Cushing Tapped the Power of Community to Pull the Plug on Nuke Plants.

Rule of Law: A lost trajectory

Last month, one of the most fearless human rights defenders in Zimbabwe, Beatrice Mtetwa, was arrested. Her crime: speaking in defense of her client as a lawyer. This was not the first time that Beatrice had faced challenges in executing her duties. Beatrice’s undaunted courage and persistence is beyond admirable. I explored the possibly plausible reasons for her arrest in my article: The story of Beatrice Mtetwa: A Red Herring?

The following trailer of the film: Beatrice Mtetwa and the Rule of Law, co-produced by Hopewell Chin’ono and Lorie Conway, captures Beatrice’s struggle as a lawyer dealing with the paradox of a country with a thousand laws but gripped by lawlessness, with such lawlessness perpetrated by those entrusted with the duty to enforce and uphold the laws of this country in the Constitution; the police, the judiciary, the executive power of the state.

Watch away…

Of coups, rebellions & revolutions: CAR

They say history has a way of repeating itself. Ten years ago, the very same headlines we are reading today were topping most papers in the press. “Central African Republic: Rebel leader seizes power, suspends constitution” Irin News. Then;  the reaction of the African Union was the same; they ‘strongly condemned’ Bozize’s actions. The then Chairperson of the AU, President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, said the coup undermined the continent’s efforts to achieve sustainable development.  After inordinate delays, in 2005, an election was finally held, legitimising the coup government. The formation of that government was immediately followed by the continuation of arbitrary arrests, denial of fair trials, use of excessive force by security agents, abductions, torture and physical abuse, the use of child soldiers, suppression of freedoms of the press, expression, assembly, and association-which had been the order of the day from the date the coup took place.

I look at the political history of the Central African Republic and wonder, “Have they now developed an unwritten rule of a maximum term of ten years of autocratic rule given that the currently deposed leader, Francoise Bozize, also ousted his predecessor Ange-Felix Patasse in the same manner in 2003 after 10 years of repressive rule.

A myriad of rhetorical questions keep floating in my head. What drives the poorest of the poorest, countries into so much conflict? Why can’t they ever achieve peace? Don’t they realise they need peace if they are ever going to have a stable economy? Why are they always fighting? Do the people of the Central African Republic deserve the leadership they keep getting? Does any of us on the African continent? Where are we going wrong as African citizens to keep getting leaders who do not hold our interests at heart? What are we doing wrong to keep getting these narcissist egomaniacs as the leaders of our countries?

The Central African Republic has been plunged into yet another unpredictable era of instability by the coup leaders. Will they be any better than the people they have ousted-only time will tell. The African Union has given this type of change of government a name, this change that usually doesn’t really change anything besides increasing the misery of the citizens. They call them unconstitutional changes of government. The AU condemns these types of changes, they impose sanctions on the leaders of these changes, they engage the leaders  in dialogue to try and facilitate transitions to democratic rule- but is this enough? Will it ever be enough?

The Central African Republic is not really a poor country. They have large deposits of uranium, gold, oil and diamonds. They have wide spans of arable land, stretches of lumber and abundant hydro-power.

Why, have they remained in the top ten of Africa’s poorest countries?

Could it be the good governance deficit; because if a leader who came to power through a coup in 2003 is also leaving through a military coup in 2013, then this must be a clear sign that even after 10 years there haven’t been significant institutional reforms to allow for legal and smooth transition of power?

Could it be the remnants of the war; given that the CAR has not had significant stability since its independence from the French in 1960?

But what fuels the conflict?

Is it greed, with different sides thinking that the only way to gain access to the wealth that this country has is through acquisition of power and political influence?

Could it be external influence? It appears the Central African Republic had its independence declared in 1960 yet the struggle for independence continues. Bozize began a reign of terror 10 years ago, a period that he began ushered by a strong backing from the French. Repression, authoritarianism, nepotism, corruption and underdevelopment were the order of the day, so one would stop and ask, why the French would commit their funds, their  troops and efforts to protect Bozize’s government, if democracy, good governance, development and prosperity is what they [as members of the European Union] want for the people of the Republic.

Franceafrique a friend calls it; the continued interference of the French government in the politics of its former colonies- a handpicking of leadership, a sponsorship of rebel groups to unseat “unwanted leaders”, a total disregard to the idea of democracy and good governance.

All I can say is “Cry my beloved continent,” as the peoples of Africa continue the struggle for true independence, for peace and for development.

Meanwhile the media is in a frenzy:

• “Bozize ouster is latest power grab in Africa’s “phantom state” Reuters
• “President Francois Bozize missing as Central African Republic capital seized by rebels” The Australian
• “Francois Bozize flees CAR capital as rebels move in” Scotsman.com
• “Francois Bozize, Central African Republic President, Overthrown By Rebels” The Huffington Post
• “Looting and Gunfire in Captured Central African Republic Capital” Al Jazeera
• “Central African Republic’s Francois Bozize flees as rebels invade capital” South China Morning Post
• “Central African Republic: President Bozize flees Bangui” BBC News Africa
• “Central African Republic rebels seize capital and force president to flee” The Guardian UK
• “Britons told to leave Central African Republic after coup” The Telegraph

I wish they had had the same enthusiasm when Ghana had it’s smooth transition. As I said before, When it happens in Africa….

The story of Beatrice Mtetwa: A Red Herring ?

Right in the middle of a historical exercise, the holding of a Constitutional Referendum- something monumental had to happen. Merely a few hours after voting had ended, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) -in its unfathomable and incomprehensible wisdom-decided to arrest Beatrice Mtetwa. Previously I wrote about Beatrice in my Feminist Chronicles, having identified her as one of the most influential women in Zimbabwe, whose bright intellect and sharp and keen sense of reasoning was above many.

Given her history as a strong advocate for the weak, the defenseless and the vulnerable and also given her strong will to take on cases that many cowered away from, it is no wonder that she made it to the top of the regime’s WANTED list; a regime that is scared witless of its own population yet so boastful of its popularity.

The facts of the case…

Beatrice was arrested on the morning of Sunday the 17^th of March 2013 in the line of duty, attending to her client Thabani Mpofu. Thabani’s home was being searched (read raided) by the police as they searched for what we have popularly come to know as “subversive material.” But who knows what that subversive material is; it could be anything from radios to smart phones to information packs, but a little bird whispered in my ear that Thabani was in the middle of putting together a dossier with evidence of corruption of some political big wigs, a job that the police believe is strictly theirs to do, hence the charges of impersonation leveled against him.

What is the law regarding search warrants

The Public Order and Security Act in Section 39 provides that the arrest or search of any person or premises shall be carried out in line with the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in Section 49 as read with Section 50 demands that the police may only search premises and seize articles suspected to have been used or intended to be used for the commission of an offence with a valid warrant of search issued by a magistrate or judge. Section 50 (4) of the Criminal procedure and Evidence Act states that a person whose rights are affected by the search can demand to see the warrant, AFTER THE POLICE HAVE EXECUTED THE WARRANT, and the police are obligated to produce such a warrant. As the legal representative of the accused, Beatrice had every right to demand to see the search warrant, but the question is did she demand to see the warrant before or after the police were done with their job?

Presumably, the answer is no and we can assume that she demanded to see the warrant during the search before the police were through with their search which is why the police then accused her of obstructing the course of justice. But given that, half the time, the police in Zimbabwe carry out arbitrary searches and seizure and arrests, any lawyer of character would do under the given circumstances what Beatrice did.  This probably explains why Justice Hungwe, a judge in the High Court of Zimbabwe ordered her release.

However there remains no valid explanation as to why Beatrice remains in police custody despite the order for her immediate release. There is also no explanation as to why she has been moved from police station to police station since then in the typical fashion that the police have adopted to deny an individual under interrogation access to their legal counsel and/or relatives. This same tactic was employed against Jestina Mukoko and has been observed in many trends where political activists and human rights defenders have been arrested.

Is this arrest an end in itself or a means to an end?

Theory One…

A week ago IDASA launched the Democracy Index for Zimbabwe, an analysis of the state of democracy in Zimbabwe. In the Chapter on Political Freedoms and Democracy that I wrote, one of the questions informing the analysis was “How free are all people from intimidation and fear, physical violation against their person, arbitrary arrest and detention?”  In my response, I explained that despite Constitutional guarantees for such freedom, the state continues to use its security apparatus to silence dissenting voices, targeting the few vocal and visible individuals to serve as an example and unleash a silent indirect threat to the rest of the faint and weak-hearted. So I would not be surprised if Beatrice’s arrest is just but another example of that.

Theory Two…

When the process of writing a new constitution began, it ignited hope in many Zimbabweans that a new dispensation in which the rule of law would be restored was on its way.  However during the whole era of the inclusive government that particular hope has been dashed and continues to be dashed. Could it be doubted that the arrest of Beatrice is a clear message to the few hopefuls that NOTHING has changed and won’t change. This form of intimidation will continue to be the order of the day even with a new constitution with a broader Bill of Rights.

Theory Three

The arrest of Beatrice Mtetwa could be a red herring. Don’t get me wrong, that is not to trivialise the enormity of what is being done here or what it means for women human rights defenders’ safety and security. But maybe those who instigated this arrest are drawing attention away from the Referendum, with the strange and ironic  contradiction of voter apathy in city centres where people had access to the draft, to the press, to political commentary online about the contents of the constitution as compared to the high (if I may abuse the word -voluminous) turnout in the areas with citizens who had the least access to the media in the form of newspapers, radio and televisions. Were they saying, “YES we don’t know what’s in the constitution but we will vote for it anyway” or  were they forced to say “Yes” or were they genuinely saying “YES we want the draft to be the new Constitution because we agree with its contents”? There is no prize for guessing which it is likely to be! But also maybe Beatrice’s arrest is targeted at drawing the world’s attention away from how a flawed process resulted in the flawed adoption of a flawed document courtesy of political parties’ turnabout from fighting for independence, freedom and democracy to POWER.

Maybe, these are just what they are-theories -but I shall not wait for history to condemn my silence where I could have spoken-and so I have spoken, standing in solidarity with Beatrice and calling for her release- as any law abiding Zimbabwean would.