The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of the above-mentioned Zimbabwean parliamentarians, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/177/11(a)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 176th session (April 2005),

Taking into account the letter from the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament dated 1 July and the communication from the Secretary General of Parliament forwarding a memorandum prepared by the Police General Headquarters dated 14 October 2005, also taking into account communications from the sources dated 11 October,

Recalling the following information on file:

• The former and incumbent parliamentarians concerned were arrested and detained for different periods of time; while in many cases charges were dropped, withdrawn before plea or the persons concerned acquitted, according to the police report of March 2004 and March 2005, judicial proceedings are still pending against Mr. Mutendadzamera, Ms. Mpariwa; Mr. Biti, Mr. Madzore, Mr. Gwetu, Ms. Khupe, Mr. Madzimure, Mr. Mutsekwa, Mr. Nyoni, Mr. T. Munyani, Mr. Mzila Ndlovu, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Chamisa;

• Mr. Mutendadzamera, Mr. Mzila Ndlovu, Mr. Bhebhe, Mr. Nyoni, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Madzore, Mr. Mpandawana, Mr. Mushoriwa, Mr. Shoko, Ms. Masaiti and Mr. Chamisa were reportedly ill-treated and beaten up by law enforcement agents and Mr. Job Sikhala was tortured; while investigations were opened into the torture of Mr. Sikhala, it is unclear whether investigations regarding the other cases are pending;

• Mr. Mpala, Mr. Bhebhe, Mr. Nyoni, Mr. Sansole, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Madzore, Mr. Gwetu, Mr. Fidelis Mhashu, Mr. Chaibva and Mr. Chebundo were either themselves, or their families or their property the target of attacks; at the court hearing held on 20 January 2005 concerning the attack of 16 May 2001 on Mr. Bhebhe, when he was assaulted and left for dead, it turned out that the case file had been lost; it is unclear whether investigations are under way regarding the attacks on the other MPs concerned,

Considering that, in his letter, the Speaker affirms that the procedure adopted by Parliament to deal with this case was in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe and Mr. Bennett has made extensive use of his right under the Zimbabwean legal system to seek legal redress for any perceived violations of fundamental rights by the State; the fact that he has not succeeded in persuading the courts that his rights have been violated is not the fault of the Speaker of Parliament. Mr. Bennett's conduct in Parliament on 18 May 2004 amounted to contempt of parliament, an offence considerably more serious than common assault, and the authorities on parliamentary practice agree that an assault by one member of parliament on another during parliamentary proceedings in the chamber amounts to serious contempt, and the penalty accordingly fits the seriousness of the crime,

Considering in this respect that:

• In the judgement it issued on Mr. Bennett's application seeking an order for his release, the High Court found on 18 February 2005 that it was not competent in this case as the Speaker had issued the certificate of privilege provided for under Section 16 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act and that, by virtue of that Section, any proceedings under way had to be immediately stayed upon presentation of the certificate and be deemed to be finally determined. The Court nevertheless stated that "what may well be at issue when the matter is placed before the Constitutional Court is whether the Parliament should continue to enjoy such wide quasi judicial powers which may be exercised in such a manner as to deprive a private citizen of his liberty without due process ...";

• Among the arguments which the Attorney General (Intervenor) presented to the Supreme Court regarding Mr. Bennett's constitutional challenge of Section 16 of the Privileges, Immunities and Powers of Parliament Act concerning contempt of parliament, he submitted on 23 May 2005 that the impugned proceedings should be declared null as far as the sentence was concerned,

1. Thanks the Speaker for his letter and cooperation; also thanks the police for the information regarding the judicial proceedings which are still pending against Mr. Job Sikhala;

2. Regrets, however, that no information has been provided regarding the stage reached in the investigation into Mr. Sikhala's torture during his detention from 14 to 16 January 2003; reiterates its wish to receive such information;

3. Recalls in this regard that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law and that, according to the United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, "wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture … has been committed, the competent authorities of the State concerned shall promptly proceed to an impartial investigation …";

4. Reiterates its wish to receive information regarding the current stage of the investigations into the attacks on the parliamentarians concerned and/or their alleged ill-treatment at the hands of security agents;

5. Recalls that impunity, a human rights violation in itself, undermines the rule of law and encourages the repetition of crime, and affirms that Parliament should therefore make every effort to prevent it;

6. Would appreciate receiving information as to the current stage of the judicial proceedings still pending against the above-mentioned parliamentarians;

7. Notes that no proceedings are pending nor have any other complaints concerning the situation of Mr. Fletcher Dulini-Ncube, Mr. David Coltart, Ms. Trudy Stevenson, Mr. Gibson Sibanda, Mr. Silas Mangono, Mr. Paul Themba Nyathi and Mr. Renson Gansela been referred to it; decides consequently to close the further examination of these cases; deeply regrets, however, that Mr. Fletcher Dulini-Ncube lost his sight in one eye owing to his detention and had to undergo trial on the basis of highly questionable charges of which he was acquitted; likewise regrets the harassment of the other parliamentarians and the bringing of highly questionable charges against them which had to be dropped or of which they were acquitted;

8. Reaffirms that the sentence imposed by Parliament on Mr. Bennett is unprecedented in international parliamentary practice, exceedingly severe and disproportionate and does not serve the purpose of contempt of parliament proceedings, which is to maintain the dignity and decorum of the parliament;

9. Points out that, in his presentation of arguments in the constitutional challenge of Mr. Bennett's sentencing before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office reached the conclusion that the previous Parliament had indeed violated Mr. Bennett's rights inasmuch as the sentence handed down to him was disproportionate to the offence committed, and that the impugned proceedings should therefore be declared null in regard to the sentence;

10. Would appreciate being informed of the stage reached in the proceedings before the Supreme Court in which only one hearing has so far taken place; recalls in this respect the fundamental principle that justice delayed is justice denied;

11. Would appreciate receiving any information on the steps that have meanwhile been taken to execute the court decisions ordering the vacation of Mr. Bennett's farm;

12. Reaffirms that parliament has a duty and a vested interest in ensuring that all its members are treated in keeping with national and international law and the human rights standards to which Zimbabwe has subscribed, in order that they may carry out their mandate without hindrance; calls on the Parliament to take these matters into serious consideration and avail itself of all its powers to ensure respect for human rights;

13. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to the competent authorities, the parliamentarians concerned and the sources, inviting them to provide the requested information;

14. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 114^th IPU Assembly (May 2006).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 113th IPU Assembly and related meetings in PDF format (file size 653K approximately ). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS