Zimbabwean Ambassador’s briefing

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
3 November 2004
ZIMBABWEAN AMBASSADOR’S BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Bill
Briefing Notes on Electoral Reforms
Biography of Mr S K Moyo
Zimbabwe Presidential Elections 2002, Observation Mission Report, SADC Parliamentary Forum (on the SADC Parliamentary Forum website at http://www.sadcpf.org )

SUMMARY
The Zimbabwean Ambassador to South Africa informed the Committee about the prevailing political and socio-economic conditions in Zimbabwe. He announced proposed changes to legislation ahead of General Parliamentary Elections in March next year. He discredited international agencies that condemned the Zimbabwean Government over issues ranging from the legitimacy of the 2002 presidential election, to urgent and ongoing food shortages and basic human rights violations. The current Land Reform policy was explained in terms of flaws in the inaugural constitution drafted with Britain.

The Ambassador explained that the COSATU delegation recently denied access into Zimbabwe had been forewarned, in writing, not to visit the country on its intended itinerary, and to do so only after achieving clearance from the Minister of Public Services, Labour and Social Welfare. The Presidential Powers Temporary Measures Act (2002), which provided Government with an instrument to override parliamentary decisions, was still entrenched in Zimbabwean legislation.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed the Zimbabwean Ambassador to South Africa, Mr SK Moyo, and briefly described the healthy spirit of diplomatic relations between Zimbabwe and South Africa, which were not just neighbours but ‘liberation companions.’

Mr Moyo agreed with the Chairperson's comments, noting the common history, culture, border and destiny of South Africa and Zimbabwe. Unlike South Africa, Zimbabwe did not have a homegrown constitution. The Lancaster Constitution, drafted with Britain in 1979, contained elements that were unsatisfactory to Zimbabwe at the time. It made no attempt to address land rights when 1% of the population owned 70% of the land. The Zimbabwean delegation at Lancaster, England, eventually signed the co-drafted Constitution on the basis of a fund established by Britain to purchase land, on a willing seller principle, for Government to redistribute.

Land Reform
The willing seller mechanism proved slow and ineffectual as a means of land reform. In 1997 the new British Labour government reneged on its land contract with Zimbabwe. After consulting landowners and imploring them to sell portions of their farms, (there were those who owned fifteen farms, those who visited their farms from Britain once a year to hunt animals) Zimbabwe’s Government decided to expropriate land. Compensations were issued to evictees for improvements they made to the land, such as dams, buildings and houses, but for the total value of their losses, Britain was expected to compensate them, as they were ‘British settlers.’ A one man to one farm law was passed, which now governed land reforms.

Today, Land Reform was virtually complete, with a few ‘tidying up’ matters remaining. Ninety-nine year leases were issued to farms on the basis of productivity. Leases were rescinded from farmers who could not demonstrate productivity, and the land was re-appropriated.

Despite previous years of drought, food harvests were high this year and last year. In short, there was plenty of food available to the population.

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Bill, 2004
Zimbabwe was amending the Constitution in time for the General Parliamentary Elections in March 2005. Various SADC guidelines were contained in it. Mr Moyo noted that SADC guidelines only constituted law if they were drafted into legislation. The current Constitution required four separate bodies to run elections. The Elections Directorate, created in terms of the Electoral Act, was responsible for the logistics of voting- provision of materials and equipment. The Registrar General of Elections registered voters and enforced standards of voter conduct. The Delimitation Commission was appointed every five years and conducted delimitation of 120 constituencies in Zimbabwe, which elected 120 out of 150 members of parliament. Of the remaining thirty, the President appointed twelve, the House of Chiefs elected ten, and eight provincial governors were appointed to administrative posts. Lastly, the Electoral Supervisory Commission was required by the constitution to supervise and monitor the elections. The Commission invited monitors and observers from abroad to witness elections. Only those invited were recognized as official election observers. Mr Moyo reflected on the proliferation of unaccredited election observers at the 2002 presidential election: Hundreds of Tories had come as holiday-makers to Zimbabwe. They left the country purporting to be elections observers.

In terms of the Bill, the Registrar General of Elections and the Electoral Directorate would be abolished and replaced by a Zimbabwean Independent Electoral Commission (ZIEC). If passed through parliament, the ZIEC would become the official authority governing all local referendums and elections. The president himself, in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, would appoint a Chairperson and four commissioners out of a list of seven nominated by parliament. Their tenure of office was secure unless they were dismissed upon the recommendation of an independent disciplinary hearing. The proposed function of the ZIEC was to prepare for and conduct all elections freely, fairly and transparently in accordance with the law, under the financial contributions of Parliament. It would also be responsible for conducting voter education. Political parties should be allowed to conduct voter education under the supervision of the ZIEC. Other changes were proposed in the Bill. The voting period should be reduced from two days to one, beginning at 06h00 and ending at 18h00. Polling stations should be divided into three categories according to surnames, with mobile polling stations discontinued. Visible rather than invisible indelible ink should be used to register voters and an Election Court should be established to hear election disputes within a period of six months after the elections.

COSATU visit to Zimbabwe:
Mr Moyo clarified that the general secretary of COSATU, Mr Vavi, had written to the President’s office on 11 October, explaining the nature of the proposed COSATU visit. The Minister of Public Services, Labour and Social Welfare, Mr MP Mgwangwa, decided that the mission had a political agenda rather than labour, and he wrote back on 22 October giving a warning Mr Vavi to cancel the visit or forward a new itinerary pending his approval. Among its requests COSATU had wanted to visit the CRISIS Coalition, the Zimbabwean Congress of Human Rights, and the Zimbabwean Council of Churches, which were all highly critical of Government. Unfortunately COSATU waived the Minister's letter and its visiting delegation was arrested at the airport and sent home. Mr Moyo concluded that although there had been criticism of Zimbabwe’s actions, the South African Government was in full support of the sovereignty of Zimbabwe and its right to exercise discretion.

Discussion
Mr D Gibson (DA) criticised President Mugabe for ‘wrecking Zimbabwe’s economy.’ Amnesty International had announced urgent food crises in Zimbabwe. He accused the President of withholding and distributing food discriminately according to the political identity of the population. The 2002 elections were not free and fair, and the proposed amendment to shorten the voting process was outrageous. It was clear that Zimbabwe did not have a free press or a free civil society. If COSATU was not permitted to consult with Zimbabwean non-governmental organisations, then obviously Zimbabwe was not a democracy. What was happening to Roy Bennett, the Zimbabwean MP jailed for fifteen months over a punch up in parliament with another MP? Would Mr Bennett be permitted to campaign in the forthcoming elections? The bi-partisan agreement between South Africa and Zimbabwe, mutually protecting rights of either citizens to own land in either country, had still not been signed. Was Zimbabwe refusing to sign?

The Chairperson interjected that the Committee did not require Mr Moyo to respond to the issue of the jailed MP. This Committee had no sanction to interrogate the judgment of another country’s Parliament.

Mr Moyo agreed with the Chairperson and withheld comment about Roy Bennett. He discredited Amnesty International, which he said obtained information while sitting on the other side of the world. Government was satisfied that there was enough food in Zimbabwe. The 2002 elections were declared free and fair by the African Union, Southern African Development Community and NAM (Non-Aligned Movement). The Commonwealth was the only organisation (EU did not count because it was not unanimously decided) with contrary findings. However, the Commonwealth was not registered by Zimbabwe as an elections observer, thus its findings were invalid. Yes, the Bi-partisan agreement had not been signed yet, but shall be very soon.

Dr S Pheko (PAC) said South Africans related to the plight of Zimbabweans historically dispossessed of land. In fact, he felt that the South African land issue was worse off than Zimbabwe. Was Zimbabwe up to speed with its Land Reform? Was land redistribution equitable? Secondly, the new SADC guidelines in the Bill before Parliament: would these form part of legislation in time for the March elections?

Mr Moyo agreed with Mr Pheko’s comments. He said that President Mugabe was a hero the world over, before his land reform policy, and now he was the devil! Was this unfair? Yes, the SADC principles would be in place for the elections. However, only those SADC principles enacted became law. Land reform was now at a ‘mop-up’ stage; everything thus far had progressed well.

Mr Pheko said he was concerned about equitable redistribution. How were land reforms reaching citizens in urban centres?

Mr Moyo replied that land reforms were split into two groups. One group constituted livestock farms, the other, crop farms.

Dr P Mulder commented that the true test of a democracy was the handing over of power. He criticised the revised duration of elections. Observers should be allowed four months prior to elections for monitoring the fairness of campaigns and the political activities of media. One day was insufficient to register votes of an entire nation; was this amendment motivated by the preponderance of opposition voters in Zimbabwe’s urban areas? The eight governors appointed to parliament: were they elected by the provinces or appointed by the president? Finally, the COSATU officials in Zimbabwe were apparently treated brutally. Did Mr Moyo have anything to say about this? It should be noted that if COSATU had stuck to labour practices in the 70’s, South Africa’s liberation would have occurred much later than it did.

Mr Moyo replied that observers would have nothing to do if they arrived in Zimbabwe three months before elections. SADC guidelines required observers to arrive at least two weeks prior. There was free press, radio and television in Zimbabwe. One should go there and see for oneself. He knew nothing of police mistreatment or brutality toward COSATU delegates. The High Commissioner for South Africa in Zimbabwe certainly had not reported any such incidents. One day was sufficient for the country to cast its votes. Those standing in queues between 6 am and 6 pm would get to vote.

Adv Z Madasa (ACDP) asked what developments had taken place regarding the Daily News, which had been shut down the previous year. Did Government still reserve the right to stop free association meetings: would this right be repealed for the coming elections? The President appointed a Chairperson and four commissioners to the ZIEC. This was not right, how could Government appoint officials that are supposed to monitor government? It was worrying that the COSATU fact-finding mission was stopped because it planned to consult groups with leanings to the political opposition. Was it true what media reports stated, that members of the opposition were looked upon and treated as a ‘lesser breed,’ with no say in the leadership of the country, and ruling party members were seen as a ‘pure breed,’ because they had participated in the liberation struggle?

Mr Moyo replied that the Daily News had not registered itself with the authorities, as was required by law. It was therefore shut down. The President appointed members of parliament as his constitutional duty. This could not change without a two-thirds majority in parliament. COSATU was denied entry because its mission fell outside COSATU objectives formally know to Zimbabwe. Members of opposition were not thought of as a lesser breed.

Mr M Sibanye (ANC) dismissed Mr Pheko’s proposition that land issues in South Africa were worse than in Zimbabwe. He asked Mr Moyo to elaborate on the role played by whites in Zimbabwe, Were there any racist or xenophobic attitudes on the part of Government? Mobile polling stations play a positive role in elections, especially in accessing rural votes. Why were these to be done away with?

Mr Moyo responded that the Zimbabwean liberation struggle was never racist. He had many white friends in Zimbabwe, who were friendly with Government. Mobile stations were a controversial issue at the previous elections. There were allegations that the votes of mobile stations were doctored. A provision for more stationary polling stations shall be made to make up for absent mobile stations.

Ms P De Lille (ID) asked what role was perceived for heads of state of SADC communities in the Zimbabwean elections. Which observers from outside would be invited? The Presidential Powers Temporary Measures Act (2002) provided Government with an instrument to override parliamentary decisions. This act violated the principles of Separation of Powers. Was it still in existence?

Mr Moyo replied that appropriate electoral institutions would invite observers once the institutions were established through the planned Bill. African observers would be invited first. He was unsure about the roles of Heads of States, but they were welcome to visit Zimbabwe. The ZIEC, once passed through the enactment of the Bill, would become the official authority on elections, superseding the authority of the Presidential Powers Temporary Measures Act.

Mr S Huang (ANC) felt that a one-man-one farm policy was inefficient for land reform. If farms were as big as Mr Moyo claimed, it could not provide for the landless population. If COSATU were granted visas to fly to Zimbabwe why were they rejected on arrival?

Mr Moyo replied that the size of farms for appropriation was determined by the ecology and arability of the land. Larger farms were required for cattle farming than for crop farming. Experts were on hand to guide Government. Visas were granted to South Africans on arrival in Zimbabwe and not beforehand as implied by Mr Huang.

Mr K Bapela (ANC) indicated that the SADC had blamed election violence in 2002 on youth militias. Why was there a need for youth militias, given that a police service and an army functioned in Zimbabwe? Mr Bapela wondered if ‘constructive engagement’ and ‘quiet diplomacy’ were positive political agendas for South Africa on Zimbabwe.

Mr Moyo had never heard of the youth militia. There were youth camps, however, which educated school leavers with life skills and gave basic job training. This was in accordance with the National Service Scheme. There was no alternative to quiet diplomacy other than war. If that was the case, South Africa was welcome, but would regret it, he warned.

Ms M Njobe was worried that there was insufficient time between now and March to prepare for the elections. The Bill that would change electoral laws was yet to pass into an Act. Thereafter, the new institutions must organise themselves and the old ones dissolve. How would this happen in less than five months?

Mr Moyo answered that electoral preparations had been ongoing for months. The Bill would probably pass in Parliament as soon as next week.

Ms De Lille said that she had glanced through the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission Bill handed out to the Committee today, and had found no provision that it would supersede other acts in Parliament, such as the Presidential Powers Temporary Measures Act.

Mr Moyo assured the Committee that the Bill before them was merely a general summary. It was only drafted for this meeting to show the SADC guidelines contained in it.

Mr M Mohlaloga (ANC) expressed his support for the current democracy operating in Zimbabwe, which, he emphasised, was not a regime.

The meeting was adjourned.