I rise to contribute to the debate on the Presidential address to this house. May I start by responding to some of the points which were raised in yesterday’s debate, firstly by the mover of the motion before the House, the Hon. Member, Mr. Dokora. In his contribution yesterday, Mr. Dokora, touched on a number of issues, the first of which relates to the judiciary in this country.
He made certain statements and allegations in respect of the judiciary, for example, that there is need to re-look at the composition of the judiciary with a view to redressing among other things the racial imbalances and also correcting certain perceived tendencies in the judiciary in protecting narrow sectoral interests. With respect, let us look at the facts on the ground about the judiciary in Zimbabwe today.
Starting with the Supreme Court which has five judges, all of whom were appointed to the Supreme Court by this Government after independence. Of the five, three are Blacks, two are Whites. If one then look at the High Court, there are currently eighteen judges in the High Court and of those 18 only four are white, the other 14 are Black. If one wants to be exact and accurate, you will say of the 14, 12 are strictly speaking Blacks, the other two even though Blacks are of Indian extraction. That tells me that there is no issue about racial imbalances in the judiciary requiring the appointment of more black judges as suggested by the honourable member, Mr. Dokora. Indeed, all the 18 High Court judges were appointed after independence, in fact after 1983 by this Government.
In respect of the concern about the ages of those judges which the honourable member described as geriatric, none of those judges is above the age of 70 years, none of them is 80 or 76 years old. The
overwhelming majority of them are below the retirement age for judges which is set by the Constitution of this country at 65 years. Only three of them are above the age of 65 and below the age of 70, and the Constitution of this country allows them to serve if they are below the age of 70. Having made this outline, I respectfully suggest that it seems obvious that the factual basis for the submission by the mover of the motion are in fact erroneous. A little research would have revealed these facts.
It is very dangerous for an honourable member to say anything in this august House which seeks to undermine the authority of the judiciary and its independence. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear] – If what we want is a judiciary which rules in favour of the preferred position of the Executive on every issue which comes before them, then we do not need the courts. We, might as well go back to what I might call the pre-civilisation stage where the monarchy was the judge, law-giver and the executor. This august House as the law-giver of this nation, must accept the role and responsibility of the judiciary to discharge it constitutional functions of interpreting the laws of the land without fear and favour. Our liberties, freedoms and our being as a nation depend on it.
If I may make reference to the contribution yesterday of the member for Buhera South, he appealed to the Members sitting on this side of the House to let bygones be bygones, to forget and forgive the various violations of our freedom which had taken place before the election and after.
In respect of the concern about the ages of those judges which the honourable member described as geriatric, none of those judges is above the age of 70 years, none of them is 80 or 76 years old. The
overwhelming majority of them are below the retirement age for judges which is set by the Constitution of this country at 65 years. Only three of them are above the age of 65 and below the age of 70, and the Constitution of this country allows them to serve if they are below the age of 70. Having made this outline, I respectfully suggest that it seems obvious that the factual basis for the submission by the mover of the motion are in fact erroneous. A little research would have revealed these facts.
It is very dangerous for an honourable member to say anything in this august House which seeks to undermine the authority of the judiciary and its independence. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear] – If what we want is a judiciary which rules in favour of the preferred position of the Executive on every issue which comes before them, then we do not need the courts. We, might as well go back to what I might call the pre-civilisation stage where the monarchy was the judge, law-giver and the executor. This august House as the law-giver of this nation, must accept the role and responsibility of the judiciary to discharge it constitutional functions of interpreting the laws of the land without fear and favour. Our liberties, freedoms and our being as a nation depend on it.
If I may make reference to the contribution yesterday of the member for Buhera South, he appealed to the Members sitting on this side of the House to let bygones be bygones, to forget and forgive the various violations of our freedom which had taken place before the election and after.
He says, if we sat at independence across this House from the van der Byls and others, we should likewise be able to forgive and forget whatever might have happened in the past. It is crucially important if we are to move forward as a nation, if we are to make a clean start in this House that we accept and acknowledge the wrongs that have been committed in the past. At independence, not only did we forgive and forget, we also allowed those who had perpetrated gross human rights violation to carry on, to remain unaccountable.
After the Gukurahundi episode in the Midlands and Matabeleland, we likewise did not seek to hold those responsible accountable and even His Excellency the President has referred to that period as a period of madness. Thousands of people lost their lives, lost their homes, lost their loved ones and the perpetrators were not held accountable. Because of that failure to hold them accountable, we have seen a replay and re-run of the similar violence. For how long is this nation to look aside, to forgive the taking of lives, the destruction of property in the hope that if we forgive and forget, it will not happen. We know that where there is no accountability, there will never be responsibility. It is for this reason that we have to insist that there be accountability.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an academic debate. Some 34 innocent Zimbabweans whose only crime was to exercise their constitutional right to choose a political party different from the ruling party to belong to, they lost their lives. They did not just lose their lives, many of them lost their lives while the law enforcement agents looked on. Talent Mabika and Chiminya died in Buhera right in front of the Police. Stephens was abducted from a police station where he had sought refuge, was shot and killed. Today, his murderer, who obviously must be know to the police, have not been arrested. In addition to
those who lost their lives, hundreds more are homeless. In Honde Valley alone, one hundred and eighty nine in just one constituency are homeless today as we speak. This past Saturday three more lost their homes and their property. Again the State stands aside and looks on.
Mr. Speaker, thousands more were beaten, tortured and some of them severely. They remained traumatised today as we speak. As Secretary General of the MDC, I have the agony of facing the parents, the children, the relatives of all the people who died, or facing all the persons who lost their homes and their property which is why I said this is not an academic debate and this is not a debate to score political goals. This is a debate about the lives of peace loving Zimbabweans. They expect protection from the State. They pay their taxes from their hard earned money so that the State can protect them. It is for the reason that we are saying that we expected His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe to confront and address this issue.
If I many also refer to the contribution of the member who has seconded the motion Hon. Majange. He took issue that those of us who sit on this side of the House - described us as having some childish behaviours, he described the conduct of ordinary members of the public who might or might not have made certain slogans when His Excellency the President was coming to address this House. He described it as disgusting and lacking in respect. Let me say that respect is for the people of this country to give and respect for us as honourable members of this House and all others have to be earned. When the honourable member stands up in this House and states that in order to resolve the land question, we have to kill and expect to earn the respect of the ordinary Zimbabwean that is not going to happen. Indeed I never thought I would live long enough to hear an honorable member of this House who took oath barely two weeks ago to uphold and defend the laws of this House stand up in this same House and advocating for murder.
Mr Speaker, if I may refer you to the proper Hansard where the speech appeared, column 36 and I quote what is reported in the Hansard "It will appear that the only way to have access to land is to kill."
Those are the words Mr Speaker. I am familiar with all the rules of interpretation and there is only one meaning that can be attached to the statement I have read. That meaning is that it is a propagation
for killing.
I appeal to all honorable members in all sincerity to accept that this country cannot move forward, this country can never be truly classified as a democratic country unless and until we accept the fundamental premises of democracy. These fundamental premises in terms of the constitution to accept that there will be competition for political office, we accept that those who are not members of Zanu (PF) have a right, an unqualified right to participate in the political process of this country. To accept that the sovereignty of this nation rests in the people of Zimbabwe and that it is the people
of Zimbabwe who from time to time have to choose which political party will lead this party. It is the people of Zimbabwe who must decide in free and fair elections, not violent elections characterised by
murder, intimidation, arson, as to which political party should govern. When that right, that freedom of choice is violated, the very premises of our constitutional order is undone.
We make these submissions in the hope that the 2000 elections are the last elections that will have this violence. In order to move forward as a nation, in order for us to build that prosperous Zimbabwe, in order for us to solve the economic problems, which face this country, we need to get our politics and democracy right. If we do not we will continue to be the laughing stock of the world. In conclusion, let me say a lot has been said about land reform. Those of us on this side of the House are very clear that the land question is a national question. It is an unresolved national question, unresolved for 20
years since independence principally because of the failure of the honorable members on the other side of the House to resolve it.
Itmay be convenient Mr Speaker, to give excuses but we all know that since 1990 this House empowered the government to pass whatever laws were necessary to resolve the land question. The problems created by the Lancaster House Constitution expired on 18 April 1990, more than 10 years ago. Which means that it was open to the Zanu (PF) government to pass whatever law, to take whatever action it deemed necessary to resolve the land question but it did not.
The land question can never be used as a pretext for murder et me conclude, those on this side of the House - accept that we have to resolve the land problem and resolve it urgently. But we cannot do so through violence, through intimidation and through force. We can only resolve it through transparent open processes which are acceptable to all Zimbabweans. Considering that there is national consensus on the urgency on that question, it is not necessary to continue to use the land
Mr. Speaker, this is not an academic debate. Some 34 innocent Zimbabweans whose only crime was to exercise their constitutional right to choose a political party different from the ruling party to belong to, they lost their lives. They did not just lose their lives, many of them lost their lives while the law enforcement agents looked on. Talent Mabika and Chiminya died in Buhera right in front of the Police. Stephens was abducted from a police station where he had sought refuge, was shot and killed. Today, his murderer, who obviously must be know to the police, have not been arrested. In addition to
those who lost their lives, hundreds more are homeless. In Honde Valley alone, one hundred and eighty nine in just one constituency are homeless today as we speak. This past Saturday three more lost their homes and their property. Again the State stands aside and looks on.
Mr. Speaker, thousands more were beaten, tortured and some of them severely. They remained traumatised today as we speak. As Secretary General of the MDC, I have the agony of facing the parents, the children, the relatives of all the people who died, or facing all the persons who lost their homes and their property which is why I said this is not an academic debate and this is not a debate to score political goals. This is a debate about the lives of peace loving Zimbabweans. They expect protection from the State. They pay their taxes from their hard earned money so that the State can protect them. It is for the reason that we are saying that we expected His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe to confront and address this issue.
If I many also refer to the contribution of the member who has seconded the motion Hon. Majange. He took issue that those of us who sit on this side of the House - described us as having some childish behaviours, he described the conduct of ordinary members of the public who might or might not have made certain slogans when His Excellency the President was coming to address this House. He described it as disgusting and lacking in respect. Let me say that respect is for the people of this country to give and respect for us as honourable members of this House and all others have to be earned. When the honourable member stands up in this House and states that in order to resolve the land question, we have to kill and expect to earn the respect of the ordinary Zimbabwean that is not going to happen. Indeed I never thought I would live long enough to hear an honorable member of this House who took oath barely two weeks ago to uphold and defend the laws of this House stand up in this same House and advocating for murder.
Mr Speaker, if I may refer you to the proper Hansard where the speech appeared, column 36 and I quote what is reported in the Hansard "It will appear that the only way to have access to land is to kill."
Those are the words Mr Speaker. I am familiar with all the rules of interpretation and there is only one meaning that can be attached to the statement I have read. That meaning is that it is a propagation
for killing.
I appeal to all honorable members in all sincerity to accept that this country cannot move forward, this country can never be truly classified as a democratic country unless and until we accept the fundamental premises of democracy. These fundamental premises in terms of the constitution to accept that there will be competition for political office, we accept that those who are not members of Zanu (PF) have a right, an unqualified right to participate in the political process of this country. To accept that the sovereignty of this nation rests in the people of Zimbabwe and that it is the people
of Zimbabwe who from time to time have to choose which political party will lead this party. It is the people of Zimbabwe who must decide in free and fair elections, not violent elections characterised by
murder, intimidation, arson, as to which political party should govern. When that right, that freedom of choice is violated, the very premises of our constitutional order is undone.
We make these submissions in the hope that the 2000 elections are the last elections that will have this violence. In order to move forward as a nation, in order for us to build that prosperous Zimbabwe, in order for us to solve the economic problems, which face this country, we need to get our politics and democracy right. If we do not we will continue to be the laughing stock of the world. In conclusion, let me say a lot has been said about land reform. Those of us on this side of the House are very clear that the land question is a national question. It is an unresolved national question, unresolved for 20
years since independence principally because of the failure of the honorable members on the other side of the House to resolve it.
Itmay be convenient Mr Speaker, to give excuses but we all know that since 1990 this House empowered the government to pass whatever laws were necessary to resolve the land question. The problems created by the Lancaster House Constitution expired on 18 April 1990, more than 10 years ago. Which means that it was open to the Zanu (PF) government to pass whatever law, to take whatever action it deemed necessary to resolve the land question but it did not.
The land question can never be used as a pretext for murder et me conclude, those on this side of the House - accept that we have to resolve the land problem and resolve it urgently. But we cannot do so through violence, through intimidation and through force. We can only resolve it through transparent open processes which are acceptable to all Zimbabweans. Considering that there is national consensus on the urgency on that question, it is not necessary to continue to use the land
8 August 200
No comments:
Post a Comment