Tuesday, 21 February 2012 21:08
 |
| COPAC co-chairs Paul Mangwana (Zanu-PF) & Douglas Mwonzora (MDC-T). Copac is the new frontier for the battle of Zimbabwe. The forces that have been ranged against us for the past decade and a half want to make sure a document that protects their interests, or one that can restore them in the courts is produced and adopted. |
| |  |  |  |
| Caesar Zvayi |
| Who is motivating the wave of constitutionalism sweeping across Africa? Is this pre-occupation with constitutions a manifestation of growing consciousness within Africa, or another sorry manifestation of external manipulation pursuant to entrenching Western interests? Where does the constitution-hysteria stand in the resolution of Africa’s perennial socio-economic challenges? Isn’t Africa better off addressing the pressing issues of the national question arising out of the colonial legacy of dispossession, without undue encumbrance from the so-called protection of the right to property that all these western sponsored documents inadvertently call for? Which property always relates to ill-gotten colonial loot? And why do Western donors see the need to pour a lot of resources towards constitutional drives especially in countries that make overtures to correct colonial inequities? Soon after the formation of the inclusive Government, with many sectors dying for funding and with a draft constitution agreed to by the three parties in Government in place, the call was for a new constitution. The constitution-making process has since gobbled millions of dollars and is likely to turn out to have been an exercise in futility if the Copac drafters have their way. It appears the constitutional debate was not an issue in Zimbabwe in the first decade of independence because the Lancaster House Constitutional Conference of 1979 guaranteed white minority property rights for a whole decade between 1980 and 1990. When this decade elapsed and the Government moved to implement agrarian reforms particularly after 1995, the so-called National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) then led by Morgan Tsvangirai was launched on January 31, 1998. The NCA was launched just 86 days after former British secretary for international development Claire Short wrote a letter to Zimbabwe trying to absolve the New Labour government of colonial obligations to fund land reforms. “I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers,” Claire Short wrote in part. Suffice to say, there were striking similarities between the issues raised in Claire Short’s letter and the mission statement of the NCA, whose refrain in the run up to the land donor conference of September 9-11, 1998 was protection of property rights. Most of the pledges made by donor’s were, however not honoured, and exactly 12 months later, Tsvangirai transformed himself from constitutional advocacy to opposition politics with the launch of the MDC on September 11, 1999. Our own 9/11 as it were since it marked the failure of the land donor conference 12 months earlier and the advent of politics of subversion. Again the MDC’s refrain was ‘‘protection of property rights’’. Western donors and white commercial farmers untied the purse strings as they believed it was worthwhile to finance the MDC to unseat Zanu-PF than to fund land reforms that would dispossess their kith and kin. The stage was thus set for Zimbabwe’s constitutional debate. In an effort to lay the groundwork for a successful agrarian reform programme, the Government launched its own Constitutional Commission that held plenary sessions throughout the country and came up with a draft that had radical land reform clauses calling for compulsory acquisition of white held farms without compensation. The then CC chair Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku presented the draft to President Mugabe on November 30, 1999 and a process to organise a referendum for its adoption was immediately launched. Various stakeholders hailed the draft constitution. In a report released on February 2, 2000, just 12 days before the referendum Amnesty International, an anti-Government lobby hailed the document saying, ‘‘Amnesty International concludes that the draft constitution represents major human rights improvements compared to the present Constitution — particularly with regards to women’s rights.’’ But opposition groups among them the NCA-MDC-ZCTU alliance had already launched a campaign castigating the draft constitution claiming it sought to entrench President Mugabe’s rule by giving him unlimited powers. Yet what these groups were against was Section 57 of the draft. The section stipulated that, ‘‘in the assessment of any compensation that may be payable when agricultural land is acquired for resettlement, it should always be borne in mind that the people of Zimbabwe were unjustly dispossessed, took up arms to reclaim the land, that Britain reneged on its promise and that Zimbabweans are entitled to their land’’. Hence the only compensation was to be for improvements done on the farms. This Section saw opposition groups launching spirited campaigns for the rejection of the draft, their wishes were granted in the February referendum where the NO Vote prevailed However, the hypocrisy of the opposition groups was revealed when they began demanding electoral reforms that had been enshrined in the draft constitution. In the run up to the June 2000 election, the MDC called for the scrapping of the 30 non-constituency seats, establishment of an independent electoral commission, abolishing of the four bodies that ran elections among other things, suffice to say all these issues had been covered by the Constitutional Commission’s draft. The constitutional debate peaked again during debate on Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.17) Bill that sought to bring finality to the agrarian reform programme. The Bill, now an Act amended the Constitution in three main areas, the most radical being the question of land reform. It introduced a new Section 16B that confirms the acquisition of land for resettlement purposes pursuant to the land reform programme that began in the year 2000 and provides for the compulsory acquisition, in the future, of agricultural land for resettlement and other purposes. This Amendment will enable the Government to remove legal bottlenecks that arose in the implementation of the land reform programme as white former commercial farmers were delaying the process by appealing to the courts. Under the Act, Zimbabwean courts would be barred from hearing appeals on land acquisition with aggrieved persons restricted to seeking recourse in the courts only for the purpose of determining any questions related to compensation for improvements on the acquired farms. It is important to note that Tsvangirai, who all along was quiet about the Constitution, suddenly remembered his constitutional advocacy cape. Though his party opposed Amendment (No.17) Act, the provisions of the Act and the MDC draft constitution presented by the then secretary for legal affairs, David Coltart clearly showed that the two documents differed only on the question of land, but concurred on the other six amendments. This section, which finalises the land reform programme, defeats the reason the MDC was formed, which was to scupper the land reform programme by unseating Zanu-PF. It also flew in the face of the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, the sanctions law drafted by the US Congress in concert with the MDC, that lists among the conditions for its removal, the reversal of land reforms. It is not contestable that property rights should be guaranteed for they are a pre-requisite of investor confidence. The concept, however, becomes problematic if it is used as a smokescreen to frustrate Africa’s second wave of decolonisation that focuses on redistributing ill-gotten colonial property for the benefit of the majority. So what is my point? My point is Copac is the new frontier for the battle of Zimbabwe. The forces that have been ranged against us for the past decade and a half want to make sure a document that protects their interests, or one that can restore them in the courts is produced and adopted. This is why Copac’s first draft,among other things; l Failed to to provide for the irreversibility of the land reform programme contrary to what is in the National Report as appears in items 1,2 and 3 and page 9 of 10 on Land. l Omitted a chapter on land, its compulsory acquisition and redistribution thereof. l Left the land issue from the Bill of Rights contrary to the overwhelming views of the people contained in the National Report: l Provided for dual citizenship contrary to the National Report. This is also why the draft was a clear assault on the office of the Presidency for the simple reason that the whole regime change drive crystallises around the, ‘‘Mugabe must go’’ mantra. The Zanu-PF component of Copac and the nation must be very vigilant, for the envisaged new constitution far from safeguarding our founding values and nationhood, can be used to systematically collapse everything like a deck of cards In fact, Copac’s first draft is study in regime change through the paper. This is why there is need to ensure that the people’s views ring in every chapter, section, and subsection of the final draft. |
