Dual Citizenship in Zimbabwe

Lloyd Msipa

Various opinions are doing the rounds on the internet and other forms of media with regard to the issue of dual citizenship in Zimbabwe under the new draft Constitution should it become law.
This is in light of the impasse between the three Zimbabwean political parties that make up the inclusive government (ZANU PF, MDC-T, and MDC) on how to proceed with this rather sensitive issue, which may or may not have far reaching implications on the power dynamics in the country.


COPAC, the body tasked with gathering and condensing the views of Zimbabweans at home and abroad on this issue failed to come up with a prevailing view on this matter and hence it was left to the three political parties currently in the Global Political Arrangement (GPA) to horse trade on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe.


Following months of disagreement on the way forward the negotiators finally agreed to pass the responsibility of curbing the excesses of or non thereof of the citizenship law to Parliament.
In other words the draft constitution currently before the principles sets out the Powers of Parliament in relation to citizenship in mirror image to the current Lancaster Constitution.


The provision like its predecessor (Section 9 of the Lancaster House Constitution as amended) – that an act of Parliament may provide for a) the prohibition of dual citizenship, b) the procedures for the renunciation of citizenship; c) the circumstances in which persons qualify for or lose their citizenship by descent or registration.


It is an agreed stand point that the Zimbabwe Lancaster house Constitution on its own does not prohibit dual citizenship. A provision curbing section 9 of the Zimbabwe Constitution was first introduced in 1984.
So pursuant to section 9 of the Constitution that provides that an Act of Parliament may make a provision in respect of citizenship, the Zimbabwe Parliament in 1984 enacted the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act (4:01).

Under Part 1V of the Act of Parliament dual citizenship is dual outlawed:
“PART IV
PROHIBITION OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND RENUNCIATION, DEPRIVATION, LOSS AND RESTORATION OF CITIZENSHIP
9 Prohibition of dual citizenship
(1) Subject to this section, no citizen of Zimbabwe who is of full age and sound mind shall be entitled to be a citizen of a foreign country.
(2) A citizen of Zimbabwe of full age who, by voluntary act other than marriage, acquires the citizenship of a foreign country shall immediately cease to be a citizen of Zimbabwe.
(3) A citizen of Zimbabwe who acquires by marriage the citizenship of a foreign country shall cease to be a citizen of Zimbabwe one year after the date of the marriage unless, before the expiry of that period, he has effectively renounced his foreign citizenship in accordance with the law of that foreign country and has made a declaration confirming such renunciation in the form and manner prescribed.”

It has been opined in other media that in the event of the draft constitution currently before the principles becoming Zimbabwe’s supreme law, then the current parliamentary provision curbing dual citizenship automatically fall away. This is wrong.

If the current draft constitution becomes law, parliament still has the responsibility to repeal or amend part 1V of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act. If the new Constitution does not explicitly allow for dual citizenship, then the current act remains good law until it is repealed.

So the assertion that a new Constitution in Zimbabwe automatically nullifies existing Acts of Parliament taking the Zimbabwe Constitution to the pre- 1979 days without the necessary legal processes to make them consistent with the new supreme law is misleading.

In this light of Part 1V Of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act, dual citizenship remains outlawed in the new Constitution until parliament sits to repeal or amend the ultra vires clause/provision that is inconsistent with the new constitution to the extent of that inconsistence. All laws that are in force when the new Constitution takes effect continue in force subject to any amendment or repeal.

Zimbabwe is 32, God Bless Zimbabwe

Today Zimbabwe is 32 years old. Happy birthday Zimbabwe. Fellow Zimbabweans as we celebrate and reflect on this milestone that our nation has reached, it is prudent that we take a moment to think back and reflect on the road that we have travelled and were are today. In 1980 following a protracted war of liberation Zimbabwe was born. We celebrated, our friends celebrated with us. As a young boy then aged ten I remember sitting on my father’s shoulders in Rufaro Stadium in Mbare as we watched Bob Marley who had come to celebrate with us belt out the song ‘Zimbabwe’ “ Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny, And in this judgement there is no partiality. So arm in arms, with arms, we'll fight this little struggle, Cause that's the only way we can overcome our little trouble. Brother, you're right, you're right, You're right, you're right, you're so right!We gon' fight (we gon' fight), we'll have to fight (we gon' fight), We gonna fight (we gon' fight), fight for our rights! Natty Dread it in-a (Zimbabwe);Set it up in (Zimbabwe); Mash it up-a in-a Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe); Africans a-liberate (Zimbabwe), yeah. Yes, Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980 brought with it a people’s right to self determination, a people’s right to decide their own destiny without any external interference. Armed with the commitment at Lancaster guaranteed by the United States government led by President Jimmy Carter our former colonisers Great Britain agreed to a fail proof plan to finance the land redistribution exercise on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.....and so we thought. It took the letter written on the the 5th of November 1997 by Clare Short the Secretary of State for International development in the then Tony Blair led Labour government that had just come into power a year earlier to wake us up from this deep slumber that we had allowed ourselves to fall into. This deep sleep that befell us because of this unqualified expectation that we had won our country back and hence the rest would be a walk in the park. We get the money from the British guaranteed by the Americans; buy back our land from the 5000 or so white commercial farmers, give it back to our people and our revolution would be complete. That was not to be: In a letter to Kumbirai Kangai the then Minister of Agriculture Clare Short made mince meat of the Zimbabwean expectation: “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. This woke us up from our deep slumber. It took the uprising from a little known village inhabited by the Svosve people to raise the nationalistic sentiment in us. The nationalistic sentiment over the realisation that political independence without the land was merely an empty revolution. The nationalistic sentiment that in as long as Zimbabweans remained ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water” as the founding leader of the African National Congress John Langalibalele Dube once put it Zimbabwe will never know true independence. In other words the Svosve people woke up a nation in slumber. The Svosve people woke up a nation that had procrastinated in the execution of the final phase of the struggle. The Svosve people propelled the government to enact the Land Acquisition Act of 2000, this amended the less ambitious land acquisition legislation, notably that of 1992 and that of 1997,the legal basis for which Zimbabweans could finally acquire their land taken from them ironically through a similar act of parliament by the Rhodesians using the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 in which black Zimbabweans were denied access to the best agricultural land and forced to eke out their living from small plots on "tribal reserves." It is no secret that the fast track land redistribution exercise, an exercise designed to undo the injustices of the colonial era earned Zimbabwe and its people enemies who were not comfortable with the idea of ‘African liberating themselves’ As Zimbabweans we have had to grapple with the illegal sanctions on a country set upon the irreversible path to self determination. Zimbabwe has had to and continues to grapple with The Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act an act passed by the United States Congress denying Zimbabwe a form or line of credit. This was swiftly complemented by a European version of the same. Today as we celebrate 32 years of independence, let us be mindful of the fact that we stand upon the shoulders of these Zimbabwean black man and woman who started this revolution, the Svosve man and woman and many others. Let us be mindful of the fact that this revolution is not complete. Zimbabwe will and continues to meet its fair share of challenges as we move forward. The discovery of diamonds and other precious minerals in our land is sufficient proof that God is on our side. If God is for us, who can be against us. God Bless Zimbabwe and happy birthday Zimbabwe.

ZANU- PF must change ahead of elections

The Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) national people’s conference begins in Bulawayo on the 6th of December 2011. This has been dubbed a mini ‘congress’ as fundamental structural changes are expected to take place within the leadership at the top. These changes are according to the National Chairperson of ZANU PF Comrade Simon Khaya Moyo going to be largely minimalistic. There will be no changes at the very top. The majority of Zimbabwe’s provinces are said to have endorsed the candidacy of President Robert Mugabe in next year’s harmonised elections. Comrade Simon Khaya Moyo goes on to say that “ZANU PF was going to pursue the indigenisation and empowerment drive after the conference as the party’s flagship policy in its election manifesto”. And speaking to both Algerian and Nigerian envoys in Harare recently he further stated that "After the conference we will go to the people to ensure that we prepare for the harmonised elections and naturally we are looking forward to winning the elections resoundingly," Now like may other patriotic Zimbabweans out there, I have the greatest respect for the leadership in ZANU PF, but a distinction must be made between telling some hard truths and being disrespectful. Old ZANU to New ZANU It is a hard truth that must be said that ZANU PF needs to undergo a major fundamental structural change in order for it to appeal beyond its traditional rural voters. Whilst the legacy of the war of Liberation must be respected and protected, it is however an old political tactic to continue to use the liberation war ethos to win elections today. The world has moved on and it is now imperative for ZANU PF to set old slogans aside and embrace the political revolutions currently sweeping across the globe. ZANU PF has to renew itself in order to survive into the 21 century or it will be forced out of existence. After two decades under Thatcher, poor Tory policies and industrial reform Britain became a shadow of its former self. The Thatcherite years were dogged by continuous industrial action ranging from the mine workers to government workers strikes. This over the years weakened the Tory government as the economy took a knock which provided an opportunity for a ‘New Labour’ lead by Tony Blair that had overhauled itself to come in with new policies towards fiscal prudence, commitment to providing better public services and significant public sector reform. Whilst the indigenous and empowerment process currently underway in Zimbabwe is a good thing. It is not enough to garner the popular vote in next years harmonised election. The people of Zimbabwe want fundamental change and it seems that they are prepared to get this change from whatever source. In this respect, ZANU PF must use its 12th annual conference in Bulawayo to elect a new leadership for ZANU PF. It is imperative that this happens in order for ZANU PF to have a life after the next election. The arguments that ZANU PF will crumble if President Mugabe steps down or that President Mugabe is the only person who can win an election against Morgan Tsvangirai must be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. These arguments make a mockery of all the young capable leaders within ZANU PF and outside ZANU PF. Elections and Sanctions Let me first address the two arguments put forward. President Mugabe and many other nationalists were instrumental in bringing independence to Zimbabwe. With that independence legacy we saw the advent of the one man one vote system non existent before 1980. We saw the legacy of the land reform exercise with millions of Zimbabweans having benefitted thus far. These and many other legacies will forever remain a credit to President Robert Mugabe and other nationalists like Comrade Joshua Nkomo and many others who sacrificed their lives for Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans will be forever be eternally grateful. But Zimbabwe must move on inline with the new world order. In that respect, ZANU PF must elect a new leader who will lead the party in the next harmonised election. There are unfounded fears within ZANU PF that any new person at the helm maybe no match for Morgan Tsvangirai. I beg to differ. Within its rank and file it is possible for ZANU PF to come up with a new leader. That new leader will immediately work to endear him or herself to the people of Zimbabwe between now and the next election with President Mugabe playing the role of a mentor. With the amount of gaffs being made by Tsvangirai on a day to day basis it is possible for ZANU PF to have an electable candidate before the next election. With a new leader at its helm, ZANU PF will have no need to call for elections next year. In fact it will be prudent for ZANU PF to call for elections to be held in 2013. This will be consistent with the natural life of the Parliament of Zimbabwe of five years from the date of the last election held in 2008. In fact the MDC’s have managed to use smokes and mirrors to delay elections in Zimbabwe and hence I do not see why ZANU PF can not seek to delay them further whilst it puts its house in order. Between now and then ZANU PF will have an opportunity to make fundamental headway in rebranding the party, fiscal prudence, commit to provide public services that truly matter to the people of Zimbabwe, like a constant flow of water and electricity. The indigenisation and empowerment exercise currently underway must be intensified with all credit accruing to the new leader of ZANU PF. The indigenisation and empowerment exercise must be complemented by any equally aggressive public sector reform exercise. The privatisation of state institutions like the Zimbabwe electricity Supply Authority (ZESA), the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), Air Zimbabwe and many others that are currently struggling must complement the indigenisation and empowerment exercise that is currently targeting private foreign companies only. Public sector institutions are key pillars of any economy and as long as we do not attend to them Zimbabwe’s economy will remain in comatose. On the issue of sanctions, it boggles the mind as to why the leadership of ZANU PF are calling for elections whilst sanctions are still in place. It is a truism that the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were put in place primarily to weaken the Zanu-PF led Zimbabwe government and push citizens of Zimbabwe to turn against their elected leadership. This strategy skews any election in favour of the MDC-T and muddles the political playing field. The general idea was to have Tsvangirai and his MDC-T party hijack the reins of power as soon as the people of Zimbabwe, battered by economic sanctions, overthrew the Mugabe administration. ZANU PF under a new leader may possibly be able to petition for the removal of these sanctions failure which ZANU PF must refrain from participating or calling for elections until the sanctions are removed. It will not be in the interest of ZANU PF to go to elections with economic sanctions in place fro the simple reason that the political playing field is skewed against it. Inject new blood in ZANU PF It is not rocket science to see that it is the young leaders in the MDC-T, MDC-M and MDC-N who are benefiting from being part of the Government of National Unity. They are learning on the job the skills of running government and country, whilst the ageing leadership in ZANU PF refuses or neglects to allow new young man and woman into the top leadership positions in the party. It is no secret that if one is to join ZANU PF today, they join the party at cell level and toyi toyi with others there until one is eventually finds their way to the top over the years. This apparently applies to all new aspiring leaders, educated professionals, and all those wanting to make an immediate impact in the party by way of bringing new ideas. This rule, whilst it may have been useful back in the sixties, it is now an outdated method of conscription. ZANU PF needs to adapt an open door policy towards new membership. Appointments to party positions must be upon merit as opposed to a patronage system. These and other new principals will make ZANU PF a party compatible with the new ethos of the 21st century. Factionalism and certainty

One of the many reasons ZANU PF has been dogged by factionalism has been a failure by its leadership to agree on the tenure of the leadership of ZANU PF. According to the wiki leaks revelations, there is a general consensus amongst ZANU PF leaders that president Mugabe must step down and it is in the national interest and party that a new leader be elected to lead the party. Electing a new leader at the National People’s conference in Bulawayo will go a long way in ridding the party of the factionalism that has been largely caused by the uncertainty of what would happen should president Robert Mugabe meet his maker suddenly. A new leader will by all accounts bring confidence and certainty back into the party and hence be better placed to mobilise a largely united party behind him and ZANU PF as a party would have survived into the 21st century. On the other hand if ZANU PF leaders refuse to confront the issue of leadership change at the National Peoples Party conference to be held in Bulawayo, then ZANU PF like UNIP in Zambia will have confined itself into the dustbin of history.

The Assassination of Mummar Gaddafi illegal under International Law

On the 18th of October, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Tripoli, Libya. She stated in unusually blunt terms that she would like to see ‘Mummar Gaddaffi dead’. Two days later she got her wish. Mummar Gaddafi was bombed by NATO aeroplanes as he attempted to leave Sirte and rebels from the National Transitional Authority (NTC) pulled from the drainage pipe an injured Gaddafi who had taken cover to avoid the bombardment coming from NATO Aeroplanes.

Gaddafi was pulled from the drainage pipes alive as video footage has shown and was summarily executed using his own personal golden gun. This was extra judicial killing supported by a whole Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. This was a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions in the acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality.

The issue in Libya is not so much about Gaddafi, but that his murder symbolises the final occupation of Libya. The re-colonisation of Libya by America and NATO forces. It is now a question of America and Europe doing exactly what they please in that country. Not only do they have access to the large oil and gas reserves, but also something the media rarely covers the large water reserves under the Libyan soil.
Under international law there is no rational for the assassination of Mummar Gaddafi. The original reason, which was resolution 1973 which authorised the protection of civilians, was turned into a regime change instrument. The assassination of Mummar Gaddafi is a blunt admission by America, France and Britain that this crusade was not about protecting civilians, but about regime change. This was a breach of the UN regulations. This was a NATO/US operation in a scramble for Libyan oil.

What NATO and America do not realise is that they have now created a very chaotic situation, probably similar to the one in Iraq if not worse. In the competition for the Libyan oil and Gas, the NTC and the crusading countries risk fanning more conflict amongst the Libyans themselves. Sooner rather than later the Libyans will realise that they have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. The imperial solidarity shown when taking over Libya will surely disintegrate as the scramble for these resources begins

And what was Gadaffi’s crime?

Gadaffi’s principle crime was that he refused to take any loans from institutions like the IMF etc. He refused to join the club of International bankers and decided to set up his own Pan-Africanist bank that would have provided loans to African countries. Gaddafi’s Libya was the only African/Arab country that did not owe any country or institution any money.

The Assassination of Mummar Gaddafi is part of a bigger plot by America to establish US AFRICOM. The United States Africa Command. Africa Command protects and defends the national security interests of the United States by establishing its ‘defence capabilities’ on African soil and taking over regional organizations. To date no African country except Liberia has co-operated with America in having AFRICOM bases on their soil. It is now quite clear that AFRICOM will now move into Libya. The re-colonisation of Libya will then be complete.
This is happening apparently and surprisingly with own AU and SADC being completely conspicuous with their silence. Whatever the case we see a new developing international trend were the there is a green light in the killing of leaders. This is a new US strategy of benefiting from African resources by creating destabilised states which are chaotic and hence have no central governments controlling anything. We have seen this in the Congo, Uganda, Somalia and now in Libya. This creation of chaos gives them justification for military intervention. We probably will see this soon in South Sudan. As Southern Africa and indeed Zimbabwean we need to be aware of this worrying growing international trend in which the scramble for Africa has taken a new dimension. They kill our leaders and make you believe that you were complicit.

Interpretation of the SADC communiqué on Zimbabwe

The SADC summit to discuss the political impasse in Zimbabwe held in Sandton, South Africa has come and gone. The three political parties in the Global Political Agreement Zimbabwe went to the SADC summit with different demands and expectations. The Tsvangirai MDC-T political party with the backing of a host of NGO sponsored civil society organisations that included the Crisis Coalition descended on SADC to demand, firstly, the endorsement of the SADC Organ Troika resolution held in Livingstone, Zambia in March 2011. Secondly, they were demanding that the full SADC summit of heads of states and governments to include in its deliberations the issue of security sector reforms and thirdly a definitive timeline for elections in Zimbabwe beyond 2011.
On the issue of the security sector reform, we all know what happened to that. Besides it being not an issue not covered in the GPA agreement, it seemed overtly ambitious for the Tsvangirai outfit to think for a minute that the SADC summit would entertain such preposterous demands. The issue of the security sector is a national security matter way beyond the mandate of SADC. The matter is so sensitive that it raises sovereignty issues.
On the first issue, it is not a secret that the resolution of the SADC Organ Troika of March 2011 in Livingstone was based on the inaccuracies of a report presented to it by the Morgan Tsvangirai MDC-T, which among other things misled the organ to believe that Zimbabwe was under some kind of military rule and that the Zimbabwe government was no longer in charge. This of course resulted in a flawed communiqué from the Organ Troika in Livingstone, Zambia in March.
ZANU PF also had its own set of demands. Notably, the party pointed out to the SADC leaders the ambit of the Global Political Agreement mandate when it came to issues that include the demands for security sector reforms. This was never part of the Global Political Agreement. Secondly, ZANU PF was seeking guidance from SADC with regard to the issue of elections. This requirement for guidance was premised on the basis that the Global Political Agreement that was originally agreed to last for twenty four months had since expired and hence according to the agreement, elections were now overdue.


And thirdly and most importantly, the Livingstone troika summit resolution had deliberately written out the issue of the removal of sanctions on Zimbabwe. It was this resolution that did not mention the sanctions issues as an outstanding issue to be fulfilled by the MDC-T outfit that they clamoured for its adoption and endorsement.
It is in this context and background that the three principals of the Global Political Agreement went to the SADC in Sandton, South Africa. In the latest SADC summit Communiqué, dated the 12th of June 2011, the issue of the SADC Troika communiqué, how it was received by the full SADC summit of heads of state and governments has received multiple interpretations. In particular item 22 in the resolution has been subject to misinterpretation:
22. Summit noted the decisions of the Organ Troika Summit held in Livingstone, Zambia in March 2011.
In some form of desperation, there are those from the Morgan Tsvangirai camp who got so frustrated by the failure of the full SADC summit of heads of States and governments to endorse the Livingstone summit resolutions that they have now resorted to redefining words, resolutions to suit their own ends.
Listening to an online pirate radio station some , ‘political analysts’ being interviewed were at pains trying to equate or run parallels between the word ‘noted’ with ‘endorsed’. Any Zimbabwe Junior certificate student will easily tell you the difference between the words, noted and endorsed. A standard dictionary will tell you that when something is said to have been noted it merely means something that is ‘worthy of notice, something worthy of ‘attention ‘nothing substantive.
When you endorse something it means you ‘support’ that thing. An endorsement is an act of approval. It is a qualifying comment. It is often when something is endorsed a signature is required. Now, for someone to say with no equivocation that the SADC summit endorsed the Livingstone summit resolution by using the word ‘noted’ is not only foolish but thoroughly irresponsible. The bottom line is that the SADC summit heads of state and governments saw through the shenanigans of the Tsvangirai outfit at Livingstone. In particular President Jacob Zuma saw through the games played by the MDC-T outfit. The fact that he requested to meet President Robert Mugabe a day before the SADC summit is instructive.
Another issue that seems to have either escaped or has been ignored by the pirate radio stations is the issue of the sanctions. This had been written out of the Livingstone troika resolution of March 2011. The SADC summit of the head of states and government resolution of Sandton, South Africa brought it back in under points 29-31.
29. Summit recalled its decision taken during the Extraordinary Summit in Windhoek, Namibia in August 2010, mandating the Chairperson of SADC, the Chairperson of the Organ, SADC Facilitator for the Zimbabwe Political Dialogue assisted by the Secretariat to undertake the mission to the United Kingdom, United States of America and the European Union.
30. Summit received a Report on the mission and noted its recommendations.
31. Summit committed to continue dialogue with the western powers on the removal of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
This alone is a major victory for the ZANU PF party in that the MDC-T party has been asked working together with SADC to make sure that they fulfill their part under the GPA agreement. Most importantly to make sure that they engage with their western sponsors to have the sanctions lifted if Zimbabwe is to have free and fair elections. If the sanctions are lifted, the issue of the timeline for elections will no longer be of any significance.
So, however you look or read the June 12, SADC summit resolution, the MDC-T party remains the beast of burden. The burden they have is to make sure the sanctions go before the next election, failure which they would have failed or neglected to discharge their responsibility towards the Global Political Agreement.

Violence and the case for Legitimate elections in Zimbabwe

Social networks have become the new platform for Zimbabweans domiciled in various countries around the world to pool their thoughts, opinions and arguments together as the quest for a new Zimbabwe narrative slowly begins to take shape. Zimbabwe is a country which many consider to be between a rock and a hard place. Some of us see different, depending on which side of the political divide one is compelled to argue from. Zimbabweans hold different views as to the source of our problems and the route we need to follow in order to solve our problems and hopefully agree on new Zimbabwe narrative or dream as it were. Of the many subjects that are debated on the social networks, the most controversial is the one of elections under the Global Political Agreement (GPA) and the much talked about demand for security sector reforms by the MDC-T party led by Morgan Tsvangirayi.

The issue of elections in Zimbabwe takes centre stage because they will ultimately determine which political party forms the next government in Zimbabwe and why. The ZANU PF party led by President Robert Mugabe wants the elections to be held this year, 2011, hence the demand for the need to speedily conclude the issue of the Constitutional referendum.

On the other hand the Morgan Tsvangirayi MDC-T wants the elections held either next year, 2012 or beyond. Amongst their numerous demands is the call for a free and free poll. Their demand for a free and fair poll is premised on the argument that the ZANU PF party led by President Robert Mugabe uses violence and coercion in order to determine the outcome of elections. And it is their contention that the 2008 elections were worn by Morgan Tsvangirayi and because of the violence the election results failed to translate into political power in order for him to form a government.

The key issue that we need to interrogate fairly is the issue of violence, its source and its implications on a fair and credible poll. It is the issue of violence with regard to our elections to be held either this year, next year or when ever that we need to address for us to fully appreciate the legitimacy and the full import of a real and credible election. My argument in this regard will be premised on the fact that the biggest form of violence ever perpetrated on a people was when with the stroke of a pen the United States of America enacted ZIDERA in 2001 followed closely by its allies in Europe. Lest we forget these economic sanctions became a reality when the MDC-T political party went on a world wide campaign to have Zimbabwe sanctioned.

The impacts of the economic sanctions were and still are the biggest form of violence to have ever hit Zimbabweans. The impact of this violence played itself out during the cholera epidemic, the death of thousands due to HIV complications when the Zimbabwe government failed to provide the necessary imported medication to its citizens. The violence played itself out when inflation reached unprecedented levels. This saw many Zimbabweans loosing their life savings as the value was eaten way by inflation. Whilst not condoning the political violence that happened in the 2008 elections caused by both political parties, it is my humble submission that the economic, political and psychological violence cause by the MDC-T instigate western sanctions on Zimbabweans over the last ten years makes the 2008 election violence seem like child’s play. In other words, comparatively the violence caused by the sanctions have left Zimbabweans more battered compared to the once off clashes that happened at election time.

The fundamental question that we need to ask ourselves now is, how can we justify a credible, free and fair election in Zimbabwe whilst the sanctions are in place? For Zimbabwe to have a real and credible election we need to address the issue of the political, economic and social violence that have been perpetrated on the people of Zimbabwe by the economic sanctions of the west.



The Morgan led MDC-T has been calling for the reform of the army, intelligence, the Police and the prison services as a fundamental requirement for Zimbabwe to hold a free and credible poll. Their argument is that the security apparatus is partisan and hence they will make power transfer impossible in the event that Morgan Tsvangirayi wins the polls. My take on this matter is different. What would make the transfer of power to Morgan Tsvangirayi and his MDC-T party impossible in the event of an MDC –T electoral victory is the fact that any election held in Zimbabwe with the sanctions still in place, its outcome will not represent the true aspirations of the Zimbabwean people, sanction free aspirations. It is my belief that the impacts of the economic sanctions by western powers at the behest of the MDC-T outfit are the biggest form of violence on Zimbabweans from external forces.


The lifting of the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe is the barest minimum requirement if we are to ever have a free and credible poll. All this pussy footing about security sector reform and the drafting of a new constitution will not lead us to the Promised Land. The violent assault on Zimbabweans through economic sanctions continues to play itself out in institutions like the Kimberley Processes. Whilst the chair, Congo in this rotation has authorized Zimbabwe to sell its diamonds internationally, the same countries that have sanctioned Zimbabwe continue to make sure by whatever cruel means necessary that Zimbabweans should not climb out of the sanctions hole that they have dug up for them. So how is Zimbabwe supposed to have free and credible elections with this economic assault taking place?


It is a truism that the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe were put in place primarily to weaken the ZANU PF led Zimbabwe government and instigate the citizens of Zimbabwe to turn against its elected leadership. The general idea was to have Morgan and his MDC-T party takeover the reins of power as soon as the people of Zimbabwe, impacted by economic sanctions overthrew the Robert Mugabe administration.

The 2008 election were held in this deeply polarized environment, were sanctions having wreaked havoc on the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans proceeded to stamp their effect on the electoral outcome. Most Zimbabweans voted on empty stomachs. Donor funds fed citizens at MDC-T political rallies compelling many Zimbabweans to trade their vote for food. To this day Zimbabweans are so polarized and continue to be and hence finding a common Zimbabwe narrative will be next to impossible in a country were the sanctions are the determinative factor in everyday life.

Everyday shortages of basic services like water and electricity continue to hound Zimbabweans as the government of national unity that includes the Morgan Tsvangirayi MDC-T fails to call of the hounds of sanctions they invited onto the country. It is this environment that we are being compelled to go for elections, a sanctioned environment. It is perfectly obvious that this environment has been created to bring about only one outcome only. That outcome of an MDC-T electoral victory.

It is the understanding of this sanctioned environment and its attendant effect on the election outcome by our war veterans, army commanders and captains that has compelled them to openly declare that they will not respect an election outcome won by Morgan Tsvangirayi. How can they? It would be morally indefensible for the Zimbabwean security forces to allow the transfer of power to a Morgan Tsvangirayi administration if he should ever win an election with sanctions in place. They have a moral duty to defend the aspirations of the Zimbabwean people’s right to self determination. And those aspirations must be sanction free aspirations to hold free and fair elections without any form of external or internal influence.

.

Independence: Taking back our Zimbabwe

As Zimbabwe celebrates its 31st birthday, it’s now almost fifteen years since Claire Short wrote that infamous letter that saw Britain refuse to fulfill a commitment to pay for the land redistribution from white farmers to black indigenous Zimbabweans. In the letter to Zimbabwe's Agriculture and Land Minister, Kumbirai Kangai, in late 1997, she wrote, '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 colonized, not colonizers,' she wrote.

In essence what the British were saying was that the past is the past, that the past was done with and Britain was no longer an imperial power and that Zimbabwe’s Liberation war was history. And as Zimbabweans we should get on with sorting out ourselves with no expectation of assistance from the British.


Land redistribution was the pillar of the Lancaster house agreement that brought an end to Ian Smith’s unilateral declaration of Rhodesian independence and the birth of a free nation, Zimbabwe in 1980. Our reason for celebration today. In essence, contrary to Clare Short’s letter, Britain did have a special responsibility, not only as a former colonizer but also mainly because it had failed to act against Ian Smith’s Illegal regime – making necessary a liberation war that cost thousands of lives many of whom have been exhumed from the deep mine shafts of Chobondo in Mount Darwin. All these people died because the British government refused to act against its own ‘’kith and kin’ in Rhodesia.

Given how things have turned out, I am sure if the British Government had a premonition of a future Zimbabwe in which Zimbabweans took their destiny in their hands and proceeded to redistribute land, Clare Short would have facilitated that the Zimbabwe government receive the money to buy back the land which was in the hands of white commercial farmers. The refusal by Britain to fund the land redistribution exercise gave Zimbabweans an impetus to fulfill their own aspirations.

It is at this point in Zimbabwe’s history that we saw the birth of the MDC.

The MDC is a product of the aspirations of the white farmers that were directly affected by the land reform exercise. This political party was put together in order to reverse the gains Zimbabweans have made thus far by the former white farmers. Those farmers that had fled to Britain lobbied the British government through the Westminster foundation to fund the MDC party. In Zimbabwe, although white farmers accounted for only a small proportion of the party, they were highly visible as they were the ones with money and cars. They could be seen delivering propaganda material and running MDC offices. White farmers appeared on Zimbabwe television with Tsvangirai handing over fat cheques to party coffers.

The MDC and its white activists regarded all this as everyday politics in a normal society; Zimbabweans saw this as an affront to the legacy of the liberation war and this concern was not entirely unfounded as evidenced by the role played by the likes of former Rhodesian Selous Scout Roy Bennett and in particular a man nicknamed ‘Monty’ Montgomery.

'Monty' Montgomery headed the MDC campaign in the Hurungwe and Kariba regions in the 2000 election. His family lineage in Zimbabwe went back to the 1890s. His parents were teachers in Bulawayo, at a school once attended by Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of South Africa's apartheid. Montgomery was conscripted into the Rhodesian police and rose to become an officer in the notorious special branch responsible for the interrogation of political prisoners and 'terrorists' - men like Mugabe, Nkomo, Dabengwa and nationalists.

Montgomery was running an agricultural supply business that had fallen on hard times. He had not taken much interest in politics until his pocket was hit by the land reform exercise. There are many men and women within the ranks of the MDC with a similar history.

As we celebrate the 31st birthday of our Zimbabwe, we need to be mindful of the challenges we face as Zimbabweans from people like him. These are the real enemies of Zimbabwe within our midst and we should jealously guard our independence, legacy and heritage. Some of these enemies are savagely calling for international corporations to disinvest from Zimbabwe, some are calling for sanctions to be ‘lifted’ by day and calling for their tightening at night and at the same time claim to have the people of Zimbabwe’s interests at heart.

We live in a world were our very own Zimbabwean brothers and sisters have turned against their own kith and kin .Those of us that have refused to be colonized mentally have been targeted for persecution wherever we maybe in the world. We must however diligently begin preparing to accept the baton stick as its passed on to us, uphold it and protect the legacy of the war of Liberation of Zimbabwe that it embodies. As Zimbabweans we must make sure that our country never descends into a neo-colonial state. We will be assured of this if in the upcoming elections, we refuse to vote into power any political party that does not have nationalistic credentials. Happy Birthday Zimbabwe.

Lovemore Moyo: The Case of the Matobo Parliamentary seat

On the 25th of August 2008, Zimbabwe’s legislatures voted to elect a Parliamentary speaker to preside over the August house. The significance of this election was that it ushered in Love more Moyo, Zimbabwe’s first speaker from the opposition bench since independence in 1980. He received 110 votes whilst his opponent, Paul Themba Nyati received 98 votes. It is instructive to note at this point that Love more Moyo had just been elected Member of Parliament for Matobo South.

Paul Themba-Nathan represented the smaller MDC faction then led by Arthur Mutambara, but he had support of President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party. The ruling ZANU-PF party had lost its majority in the 210-seat parliament in elections in March. Final results gave 100 seats to an MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai, the party's presidential candidate. President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF got 99 seats and the then Arthur Mutambara lead MDC party won 10 seats and another seat went to Professor Jonathan Moyo who at the time stood as an independent candidate.

Mr. Love more Moyo won 110 votes, thanks to a secret turnaround by most of the ten MPs of the Mutambara faction. It goes without saying that at least three of them soon after lost their seats after being dismissed from the party for refusing to be whipped into line.

The speaker of parliament is the fourth most powerful post in Zimbabwe

It is common knowledge that a few weeks after the election of the speaker of Parliament, the then independent Member of Parliament for Tsholotsho North Professor Jonathan Moyo, MDC’s Moses Mzila Ndlovu, Patrick Dube and Siyabonga Ncube put the house on notice that they would be challenging in the High Court the election of MDC-T Love more Moyo as speaker of the house. The basis of the challenge was premised on the argument that the voting process was flawed and not done by secret ballot and that the behavior of some MDC-T MPs who displayed their ballot papers after casting their votes flawed the election process and this had an influence on the outcome. The matter was first heard in the High Court which initially ruled in favor of Love more Moyo and a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court rescinded the previous judgment.

In his judgment, Chief Justice Chidyausiku said:

“I have come to the conclusion that the six named Members of Parliament did not vote by secret ballot and therefore their votes were irregular. The inclusion of the irregular votes in the determination of the final outcome of the election of the Speaker constitutes a failure to comply with section 39 of the Constitution, as read with Standing Order 6, providing the election of the Speaker of Parliament by secret ballot, thereby rendering it invalid.”

The MPs named as having displayed their votes were Tendai Biti, the finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe, Amos Chibaya, Gorden Moyo, Severino Chambati and Piniel Denga.

The effect of the Supreme Court decision instantly rendered the position of speaker vacant. The question on everybody’s mind with regard to this matter is:

Can Love more Moyo constitutionally revert back to his parliamentary seat in Matobo South in light of the Supreme Court judgment that has just ruled his election as Speaker irregular?

Under section 39, the Zimbabwe Constitution provides for the election of the speaker of Parliament.

39 Elections of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
(1) When the House of Assembly first meets………(2) The Speaker shall be elected in accordance with Standing Orders from among persons who are or have been members of the House of Assembly and who are not members of the Cabinet, Ministers or Deputy Ministers?
Provided that a person who is not a member of the House of Assembly

d) if any circumstance arises that, if he had been a member of Parliament—
(i) the provisions of section 41(j), (k), (n), (o), (p) or (q) would apply
to him and his seat as a member would become vacant; or
(ii) he would be required, by virtue of the provisions of section 42, to
cease to exercise his functions as a member;

Interpretations of this matter have been varied including arguments that make the inference that, since Love more Moyo lost his seat before he was elected speaker by operation of law, it then should follow that the subsequent loss of his position as speaker by the operation of law should reverse the loss of his seat since his loss was premised on him staying on as speaker.

My take is different.

Section 39, subsection d clearly provides for the scenario of which Love more Moyo was in on the eve of the election on the 24th of August 2008. He was a Member of Parliament representing a constituency. The constitution clearly states ‘if any circumstance arises that, if he had been a member of Parliament….his seat a member would become vacant….and he ceases to exercise his functions as a member”.

When Love more Moyo was elected speaker his Matobo south parliamentary seat fell vacant. In other words he lost all entitlement to this seat upon his election as the speaker of parliament. This vacant seat which, if we be reminded has been vacant for almost two years. It is therefore possible that the demographics in that constituency have changed and therefore him going back goes against any basic tenets of democratic representation. The fate of this seat is now at the mercy of the electoral commission of whom upon instruction from the President of the country a by-election would have been held. The fact that the president of the country did not call for a by-election in Matobo South and indeed in other constituencies currently vacant is not a valid reason at law to allow Moyo to revert back to the Matobo South seat.

This is not a case of restitution whereby Lovemore Moyo is being compensated for a pre-conceived loss arising from the commission or omission of his party. Besides the Zimbabwean legal system has no such precedent. The election of Lovemore Moyo did not become illegal until the supreme court pronounced it. Hence one can not look at his election as speaker and the subsequent pronouncement of the supreme court as issues retrospectively occurring at the same time. In other words, from the time of his election as speaker his work in parliament was legal and binding to the house. His work and position seized to be when the supreme court pronouncement was made to the contrary.

Lest we forget, we need to be mindful of the fact that the fundamental reason why a member looses his or her seat upon being elected to the speaker’s position has more to do with impartiality in the conduct of the business of the house. Assuming that Lovemore Moyo was now an ‘impartial officer’, how then can he revert back to be partial at the instance of loosing his post.

However the Zimbabwe Constitution as amended provides that the former speaker may constitutional present himself as a candidate for speaker. Provisions under section 39 (2) do provide for that:

‘The Speaker shall be elected in accordance with Standing Orders from among persons who are or have been members of the House of Assembly and who are not members of the Cabinet, Ministers or Deputy Ministers:

Should he fail to be elected into the speaker’s position properly at the next parliamentary meeting, considering that the dynamics within the three political parties in the GPA have since changed, he then joins the ranks of other former members of parliament who are waiting for by-elections in order to recontest their previous constituencies.

The Assassination of Herbert Chitepo

Herbert Wiltshire Chitepo (15 June 1923 - 18 March 1975) led the Zimbabwe African National Union until he was assassinated on March 1975. Although to this day we still do not know the truth about who his murderer was, the Rhodesian author Peter Stiff reveals that a former British SAS soldier, Hugh Hind was responsible. [1]
Chitepo became the first black citizen of Rhodesia to become a barrister. [2]

1. Early years
Chitepo was born in Watsomba village in the Inyanga District of Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. His family came from the Manyika clan (Samanyika) of the Shona people. He was educated at St David's Mission School, Bonda, St Augustine's School, Penhalonga and then at Adam's College, Natal, South Africa, where he qualified as a teacher in 1945.
2. Career
After teaching for a year, he resumed his studies to graduate with a BA degree from Fort Hare University College in 1949. He qualified as a Barrister-at-Law, and called to the bar by Gray's Inn, alumni included Winston Churchill. Further still whilst in London as a research assistant at the School of Oriental and African Studies. He was the first African in Southern Rhodesia to qualify as a Barrister. In 1954 Chitepo became Rhodesia's first black lawyer (a special law was required to allow him to occupy chambers with white colleagues). [3] On returning to Rhodesia in 1954, he practised as a Lawyer and defended many African nationalists such as Ndabaningi Sithole in court. In 1961, he served as legal adviser to Joshua Nkomo, founder of the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), at the Southern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference in London. In the same year (1961)he was also appointed to the Board of Governors of Bernard Mizeki College. Ian Smith's government did not detain him as he did not come out in the open as an official of the nationalist movement and the regime also feared that being the first lawyer, Chitepo was too internationally well-known to be locked up.
3. ZANU
In May 1962 ZAPU was banned because of militarism and Chitepo was persuaded to go into voluntary exile to escape possible detention. He became Tanganyika's first African Director of Public Prosecutions. The Ndabaningi Sithole and Joshua Nkomo factions of ZAPU split apart in July, 1963. Nkomo's supporters founded the PCC-ZAPU (later just called ZAPU again) and favoured a more militaristic approach. As the more moderate faction, Chitepo sided with Sithole and was elected Chairman of ZANU ( having defeated Nathan Shamuyarira ) from its foundation. He held this post until 7 December 1974, when the Lusaka Accord was signed.
Both parties vied for domination but in 1964 both were banned and the leaders were all arrested. Both parties chose to leave the country and reorganize and form armies from outside Rhodesian borders, although they chose different countries to make their base. ZAPU based itself in the West and Zambia where it organized ZIPRA (the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army.) They allied with the Soviet Union and organised a vanguard of highly trained soldiers. ZANU, however, moved into Tanzania and then to Mozambique and set up ZANLA (Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army) which concentrated more on mobilizing the masses in the countryside in a method pioneered by the Chinese.
In January 1966 Chitepo resigned as Director of Public Prosecutions and moved to Zambia in order to concentrate on the armed struggle. He toured world capitals canvassing support for ZANU and for the enforcement of total economic sanctions against Rhodesia. With his friendly disposition, he was very effective and earned for ZANU international recognition and respect.
Sithole and others prepared a comprehensive document giving powers to Chitepo to lead ZANU while Rev. Sithole was in detention and specifically authorising him to carry out the armed struggle. Accordingly, Herbert Chitepo with the military supremo Josiah Tongogara from the Karanga ethnic community,organised and planned successful military guerilla attacks and underground activities in Rhodesia from 1966 onwards. In 1972, he co-ordinated war operations with FRELIMO and opened up the North Eastern region of Zimbabwe as a new and effective war front.
4. Assassination
Chitepo died at 8:05am on March 18, 1975 in Lusaka, Zambia when a car bomb, placed in his Volkswagen Beetle the night before, exploded. He and Silas Shamiso, one of his bodyguards, were killed instantly. Sadat Kufamadzuba, his other bodyguard, was injured. The explosion sent part of the car onto the roof of his house and uprooted a tree next door. Hours later one of his neighbors died of injuries he sustained in the explosion. [4] ZANU at the time blamed Rhodesian security forces.
Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda commissioned an inquiry into Chitepo's death. Documents released in October, 2001, placed the blame on ZANU infighting. However, in his biographical account, The Legend of The Selous Scouts, Lt Col Ron Reid-Daly, Officer Commanding, Selous Scouts Regiment, Rhodesian Security Forces, clearly states that the Rhodesian Central Intelligence Organization (CIO) under the leadership of Director General Ken Flower, masterminded the assassination of Herbert Chitepo, subsequently planting documentary evidence blaming ZANU members.
"The decision by Ken Flower...to assassinate Herbert Chitepo, head of the ZANU War Council, now showed how badly Flower has misread the ZANU/ZANLA situation. The death of Chitepo purged ZANU of its many dissenting factions and a new and highly successful leader emerged. Robert Mugabe gave ZANLA the means to consolidate its efforts by providing ZANLA with an indispensable factor - unity." [pg. 173 The Legend of The Selous Scouts]
5. References
1. Mugabe still fears Chitepo's legacy Institute for War and Peace Reporting
2. Preston, Matthew. Ending Civil War: Rhodesia and Lebanon in Perspective, 2004. Page 98.
3. Time Magazine ,Monday, Mar. 31, 1975
4. White, Luise. The Assassination of Herbert Chitepo: Texts and Politics in Zimbabwe. Page 1.

Lloyd Msipa's public profile - Deborah Islington

Lloyd Msipa is a Zimbabwean Lawyer and Politician. He was born in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.He is married with children. He studied political science at the University of Zimbabwe, studied law at Thames Valley University, London United Kingdom (LLB (Hons). He also holds a Master of Laws degree in International Law (LLM) from the University of East London also in the United Kingdom.

He has worked for a number of law firms in London, England and Wales.He is currently the Executive Legal Director of Regency Incorporated plc, UK. His main passion however remains in African politics and in particular Zimbabwe politics. Besides being an aspiring Zimbabwean politician he is also a prolific writer on matters of African politics and law. Lloyd Msipa is an independent-minded leader with an even-keel temperament, charismatic speaking skills and a knack for consensus-building.

He's also a talented, introspective writer. His values are strongly shaped by his expertise as a Lawyer and by Christianity. While private by nature, he is strongly opinionated. Lloyd mingles easily with others, but is most comfortable addressing crowds. Lloyd is known for being unafraid to speak and hear hard truths when necessary. He is armed with shrewd political sensibilities.

Lloyd Msipa’s areas of special interest have been in support for the lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe. He strongly believes that the economic sanctions on Zimbabwe are doing more harm than good. Lloyd is also the legal lead of the task force members in the United Kingdom Constitutional outreach programme for Zimbabwe. Lloyd is also a member of the International Criminal Law Network (ICLN) based in the Netherlands. He is passionate about reforming the criminal justice system, public education, health care, economic growth and jobs creation sectors in Zimbabwe. As an aspiring Zimbabwean Politician, Lloyd Msipa believes in putting national interest before party politics. To this end he proposes to work passionately with other Zimbabweans of like minds through consensus for ethics reforms. He proposes to work hard to rid Zimbabwean politics of the personality cult. Zimbabwean politics is currently dominated by politics of personalities on all sides of the political divide.

To this end he proposes to work hard and contribute in the rebuilding of political institutions that will be accountable to the Zimbabwean people. These political institutions will govern Zimbabwe in an established ethical manner. Lloyd believes passionately that strong institutions of government are what Zimbabwe needs. He believes passionately the personality of a leader will not be significant if the country has strong institutions of government.