ZIMBABWE
 
CASE N° ZBW/19 - ROY BENNETT 
CASE N° ZBW/20 - JOB SIKHALA 
 CASE N° ZBW/27 - PAUL MADZORE 
CASE N° ZBW/44 - NELSON CHAMISA
 |  
 
Resolution adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 187th session 
(Geneva, 6 October 2010)
 
 
The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,
Referring to the case of Mr. Roy Bennett, Mr. Job Sikhala, Mr. Paul  Madzore and Mr. Nelson Chamisa, opposition members of the Parliament of Zimbabwe at the time the  complaint was submitted, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the  Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/187/12(b)-R.1), and to the resolution  adopted at its 186th session (April 2010),
 
Recalling the following:
 
- Mr. Sikhala and Mr. Madzore were tortured by  police officers in January 2003 and March 2007 respectively; Mr. Siikahla,  in his complaint regarding his torture provided medical certificates and names  of suspects who were even divulged in media reports at the time; in the case of  Mr. Madzore, who told the court about his torture when he appeared for  initial remand on 20 March 2007, it would be possible to establish their  identity, since (a) Mr. Madzore stated that, while in remand custody,  he was regularly visited by the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and  military intelligence agents and taken to torture sessions; he had to be taken  to a private hospital and to be put on a life support system because of the  torture he had suffered; however, despite the existence of complaints and  evidence, their torturers have to date not been brought to justice;  Mr. Madzore filed a lawsuit for damages on which no action has been taken  so far, and the application filed by Mr. Sikhala to compel the police to  investigate his complaint properly has yet to be ruled on by the High Court;
  - Mr. Chamisa was badly injured in an attack on  18 March at Harare International Airport, reportedly by State security  agents; the police took no action, arguing that Mr. Chamisa had not lodged  a complaint; Mr. Chamisa does not wish to lodge a complaint since the  attack occurred in the presence of police officers who did nothing to stop and  arrest the attackers;
  - Mr. Bennett and his family were  the target of persistent harassment between 2002 and 2006; Parliament sentenced  him in October 2004 to one year in prison for having, in May 2004, jostled a  Minister during a parliamentary debate; he served the sentence until his  release in June 2005; Mr. Bennett was forced to leave the country in 2006  for fear of his life and was therefore unable to participate in the 2008  elections; upon his return to Zimbabwe, instead of being sworn in to the post  given to him, namely that of Deputy Agriculture Minister, he was arrested on  13 February 2009 and first charged under the Immigration Act and, when the  charge was dropped, charged with treason, which charge was also dismissed; he  was ultimately charged under the Public Order and Security Act for allegedly  possessing weaponry with the intention of using it for acts of banditry,  sabotage or terrorism to overthrow the Government; the Court acquitted  Mr. Bennett on 10 May 2010, declaring inadmissible the testimony by  the key prosecution witness, who had previously stated that his evidence had  been extracted under torture, 
  
Considering that, in his letter of  30 August 2010, the Attorney General of Zimbabwe had the following to say:  (a) Mr. Chamisa, Mr. Sikhala and Mr. Madzore have not  brought any admissible evidence proving any identifiable suspect and, that being  so, there is no basis for alleging that they have not been accorded the  protection of the law; (b) there is a host of lies in issues to do with  Mr. Roy Bennett in that the latter has not substantiated the allegations  of political victimization; his issues are purely legal matters, which were  brought through the Zimbabwe courts and tribunals; (c) the Attorney  General’s Office has nothing to do with civil claims and the “inordinate delay”  in the hearing of Mr. Madzore’s and Mr. Sikhala’s civil claims and his  prosecutorial mandate; (d) he expressed surprise that the IPU could  "embroil itself in matters that are largely internal to Zimbabwe to an  extent of interfering with an independent office such as the office of the  Attorney General"; he advised the IPU to "desist from asking for  matters which Zimbabwe citizens could raise with appropriate institutions and  reminded it of its lack of locus standi to direct his office who to prosecute  or otherwise”, 
Recalling that the  Speaker of the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe has repeatedly stated that  Parliament is firmly committed to protecting the human rights of its members  and to taking action to this end within the limits imposed by the doctrine of  the separation of powers, 
 
- Thanks the Attorney General for his letter and for the information and observations he  provided; 
  - Recalls that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which the Parliament of Zimbabwe  is a long-standing member, established the Committee on the Human Rights of  Parliamentarians and entrusted it with the mandate to examine allegations of  human rights violations affecting members of parliament, and that, in  entrusting it with this mandate, the IPU seeks to strengthen the institution of  parliament as such, since a parliament can only function with the necessary independence  if its members enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms; 
  - Stresses that, in carrying out its mandate, the Committee and the IPU recall the human  rights obligations incumbent upon States by virtue of their own national law or  international obligations but in no way interfere with the independence of any  State institution and certainly do not direct any State office what or what not  to do; 
  - Stresses that Zimbabwe is a party  to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which  guarantees the right to life and prohibits torture, obliging States to  institute ex officio investigation into known crimes against life and torture  allegations and complaints so as to identify the culprits and bring them to  justice;
  - Remains  therefore deeply concerned at the continuing impunity of the State officials  responsible for the torture of Mr. Sikhala and Mr. Madzore and of the  State agents who allegedly carried out the attack on Mr. Chamisa; 
  - Considers that the existing evidence  regarding the torture of Mr. Madzore and Mr. Sikhala would enable a  serious investigation to identify those responsible and to bring them to  justice; stresses that, while the  Attorney General’s Office is not responsible for examining civil claims,  complaints about the torture of both members of parliament exist but have not  been seriously investigated; considers that, regarding the attack on Mr. Chamisa, the absence of a formal  complaint should not be invoked to justify inaction, since the authorities are  aware of the attack and are under an ex officio duty to investigate it and  hold the perpetrators to account; 
  - Reaffirms that impunity is highly detrimental to the rule of law and respect for human  rights in the country and is bound to encourage the repetition of crime, which  is all the more serious when the perpetrators are State officials;
  - Earnestly  hopes therefore that the Attorney General’s Office will take action to  investigate the attack against Mr. Chamisa and the torture complaint of  Mr. Sikhala and Mr. Madzore; 
  - Notes that,  as the Attorney Generalstated,the delays in the civil  proceedings are “inordinate” and requests the Secretary General to  contact the competent authorities with a view to ascertaining the reasons for  such undue delays;
  - Remains confident that the House of Assembly is translating its  commitment to human rights into action by making full use of its oversight role  to ensure that the competent authorities are indeed fulfilling their duties  under the law; 
  - Takes  note of Mr. Bennett's  acquittal on the latest charges brought against him; can but consider, however,  that the sequence of events in these proceedings, in particular the use of  torture to support the accusations against Mr. Bennett, emphasizes that they were without any legal  and factual basis, for a start, and were intended to eliminate him from  politics; trusts that Mr. Bennett will now finally be able to  pursue his political activities and take up the responsibilities assigned to  him; 
  - Requests the  Secretary General to convey this resolution to the parliamentary and competent  authorities and to the parliamentarians concerned;
  - Requests the Committee to continue examining the cases of  Mr. Sikhala, Mr. Madzore and Mr. Chamisa and to report to it at  its next session, to be held during the 124th PU Assembly  (April 2011).
  
 
 
HOME PAGE HUMAN RIGHTS MAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITY IPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS
 |