NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

; ; Tel: +1 604 738 0338;Fax: +1 604 736 1175

ZIMBABWE REPORT

by

Jennifer Meyer

(March 2006)

In 2004 the Zimbabwean government introduced legislation that, if enforced, would ban international human rights organizations from operating in Zimbabwe and could be used to close down or severely restrict the work of national human rights organizations. Despite criticism from human rights groups worldwide, the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Bill was passed by Zimbabwe’s Parliament on 9 December 2004. However, it was not signed into law before Parliamentary elections on 31 March 2005, and its future is now unclear[1].

I. Summary of LRWC Involvement 3/05 to 3/06

1.Non-Governmental Organizations Bill[2]: The government of Zimbabwe intends to ban international human rights groups from the country and to cut foreign funding to local organizations that promote human rights. According to the draft of the Non-Governmental Organizations Bill, 2004, “No foreign nongovernmental organization shall be registered if its sole or principal objects involve or include issues of governance.” The draft defines “issue of governance” as “the promotion and protection of human rights and political governance issues.” Under this bill, local NGOs promoting human rights and political work will be prohibited from receiving money from abroad. This draft legislation appears to have been designed to hamper the independence and effectiveness of NGO operations through a very high degree of regulation. Zimbabwe has long accused aid organizations of interfering in its internal affairs and has made repeated threats to restrict their activities.

2.On behalf of LRWC, Catherine Morris responded to this draft Bill in a letter to President Robert G. Mugabe addressing the following concerns[3]:

After reading reports of concern by persons in Zimbabwe about the Non-Governmental Organizations Bill, 2004, LRWC has reviewed the legislation and several reports about this Bill, including reports of the International Bar Association, Amnesty International, and the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. LRWC is of the opinion that if this Bill were to be passed by Parliament in its current form, the legislation would impose unduly severe and unwarranted restrictions on the freedom of association and expression in Zimbabwe.

LWRC notes that the Bill violates the international Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Zimbabwe has signed and ratified. In particular, Article 22 (regarding the right to association), Article 19 (Regarding the right to expression), and Article 22(2) which provides that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of [the right to freedom of association] other than those […] which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” The Bill also violates the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by consensus of the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998. In particular, Article 1, Article 5(b), Article 6 (c), and Article 12(2). LRWC notes that Zimbabwe has acceded to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and draws attention to Article 9 (right to receive and disseminate information) and Article 11 (right of association). In 2002 LRWC reviewed the report of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights after its fact finding mission and noted strong concern about the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe. This Bill seems to be put forward in the context of other laws which have restricted freedom in Zimbabwe including Broadcast Services Act in 2001, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Public Order and Security Act in 2001, and amendments Private Voluntary Organizations Act in 2002.

  1. LRWC’s specific Concerns about the NGO bill as we believe it would affect human rights defenders and educators:

1.Broad Definition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In particular, it includes in its definition of an NGO “any institution, the objects of which include…the provisions of funds for legal aid, [and] the promotion and protection of human rights and good governance.”

2. Increased government control and reduction of independence of NGOs.

Firstly, the Bill requires registration of all NGOs, and with the broad definition of NGOs this means that virtually all organized efforts of civil society groups are to be tightly regulated by the government. The Bill thus provides for an extraordinary level of government intrusion on collective efforts of citizens in a huge range of laudable activities, including efforts of unincorporated groups that conduct human rights education and advocacy. Secondly, NGOs must apply for registration to the Registrar of the NGO council, who works under the Minister of Social Welfare (Section 10). This process is open to excessive government interference, undue influence and inappropriate time delays during the application process. Thirdly, when an application goes before the NGO Council, no criteria for refusing registration are specified. Decisions are in the discretion of the NGO Council with an appeal (Section 15) only to the Minister of Social Welfare. Thus, there is no appeal mechanism independent of the government. Fourth, In Section 4, the Bill contemplates the creation of an NGO Council which would be heavily dominated by government officials and would have extensive powers over NGOs. Fifth, in Section 4(f), the Bill provides that the NGO council is to create a code of conduct for NGOs. There are no statutory specifications or limitations on what will be included in this code of conduct, the contents of which appear to be in the discretion of the NGO Council. Thus, the Bill is designed to place all NGOs, very broadly defined, under a very high degree of government control. This draft Bill creates alarm at a local, regional and international level regarding further erosion of independence and freedom of civil society in Zimbabwe, and particularly human rights defenders and educators whose organizations would seem targeted by this Bill.

  1. Criminalization of legitimate human rights monitoring, advocacy and education. Section 9 prescribes personal criminal sanctions of up to six months imprisonment against members of the board of NGOs that are not sanctioned. Section 17 of the Bill prohibits NGOs from receiving foreign funding or donations, which would apply to human rights defenders and educators as stipulated in Section 2. If this Bill is passed, unincorporated groups of human rights defenders or educators could be charged with offences, subjected to possible imprisonment for engaging in legitimate human rights monitoring, education and advocacy.
  2. Appropriation of NGOs’ assets. The Bill would place restrictions on funding of NGOs including prohibition of foreign funding of activities which involve issues of governance including human rights (see Section 17). Section 28 permits the government to return monies to known contributors, or take possession of the money, securities and property of the organization and then return it to contributors. If contributors cannot be identified, monies are forfeited to the government. These provisions are in violation of Article 13 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

In summary, the object of this Bill is in violation of Zimbabwe’s international obligations, and Zimbabwe’s own constitution. LRWC urges the Zimbabwean government to withdraw this draft Bill and to ensure that all future legislation fully respects freedom of association and expression and the rights of human rights defenders and educators in accordance with the ICCPR, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, and the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

II. Human Rights Organizations in Zimbabwe: A summary of developments that have occurred as a result of the December 9 2004 legislation of the NGO Bill:

Since the legislation of the NGO Bill, domestic NGOs have continued work on human rights and democracy issues, including lobbying for revision of POSA (Public Order and Security Act)and AIPPA (Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act), increasing poor women's access to the courts, constitutional and electoral reform, raising awareness of the abuse of children, conducting voter education, preserving the independence of the judiciary, and eliminating torture, arbitrary detention, and restrictions on freedom of the press and assembly[4].

However, several NGOs have reported difficulties in carrying out their programs in rural areas as councils now require that NGOs working in their districts to register with the council, seek a council resolution authorizing their operations, seek clearance from the provincial governor, and establish a memorandum of understanding with the relevant ministry[5]. Rural district councils have reportedly begun implementing the “NGO Policy,” although the NGO Bill is still in draft form[6]. During 2005, the Government’s clamp-down resulted in the closure of various HIV/AIDS programs run by NGOs and churches as these facilities relied heavily on the now frozen international donor funds. On January 7 2005, Itai Dzamara of the Zimbabwe Independent reported that, “donors from Europe and the United States have frozen further assistance to local NGOs due to the uncertainty brought about by the Bill”[7]. NGO members have reportedly been arrested or detained in connection with demonstrations or marches in protest of similar closures[8].

Zimbabwe’s Ambassador to Canada, Gabriel Machinga, gave the following statement on February 16th 2005 regarding the issue[9]:

“What is happening is that we've had a proliferation of NGOs... Of these, very few are like CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). CIDA has a development mandate that is clear you know what they are going to be doing, what they are involved in. Some NGOS are one person […] they are not accountable to anybody and you don't know what they are doing. Less than a quarter [of them are] involved in normal social development programs, the rest are in the human rights and good governance agenda. And most of them are espousing the regime change chorus, which amounted to downright political interference in the sovereign state of Zimbabwe. We now have a central council that is involved in the establishment of the conduct of the NGOs... The (15-person) council has five representatives from NGOs themselves.”

The Zimbabwean government has reportedly engaged in the harassment of NGOs believed to be opposed to government policies, including raids on NGO offices, inquiries into their activities, and interference in the renewal of work permits for foreign employees[10]. The Government has continued to obstruct the activities of organizations involved in humanitarian activities. In particular, the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO December 2005 Political Violence Report noted that, “there is evidence that the government has obstructed efforts by humanitarian NGOs to render assistance to those affected by Operation Murambatsvina[11], which is contrary to the government’s responsibility to protect[12].” Furthermore, despite overwhelming evidence of humanitarian need the Zimbabwean government has, “denied that a humanitarian crisis exists, refused to release a UN appeal for aid and repeatedly obstructed the humanitarian efforts of the UN and civil society groups[13].”

The U.S. Department of State reports that in July 2005, the African Union (AU) suppressed a report by the African Commission on Human and People's Rights (ACHPR) which included information on Zimbabwe’s current conditions. The report, which contained allegations of government complicity in, or consent to, a wide range of rights abuses, including torture and arbitrary arrest of NGO members, opposition M.P.s and human rights lawyers, was due to be presented to an Executive Council meeting in July, but the Executive Council chose not to release it when Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge objected that the Government had not been given the opportunity to review the report[14].

On March 7 2006, NGO Watch and ZimOnline reported that Zimbabwe Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa has announced that the government is presently “polishing up” the NGO Bill before it is brought back to Parliament for enactment[15].The ruling party and the government are now finalizing changes to the NGO Bill but would not comment on what these changes are[16].“NGO experts say if the law is eventually enacted, it could force at least 60 percent of civic and aid groups to [cease] operations, a development that would affect the monitoring of human rights violations in the country as well as humanitarian work such as HIV/AIDS prevention[17].”

III. Human Rights Defenders in Zimbabwe: A Review and Summary of problems for human rights defenders in Zimbabwe during the past 12 to 18 months:

  1. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights[18]: Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) objective is to foster a culture of human rights in Zimbabwe, and to uphold respect for the rule of law and the unimpeded administration of justice, free and fair elections, the free flow of information and the protection of constitutional rights and freedoms in Zimbabwe and the surrounding region. The ZLHR states that Operation Murambatsvina has been a top priority, and extremely problematic as the most affected people have been hesitant to have their cases taken to court for fear of victimization. Another challenge for this NGO is the denial of access to people requiring legal assistance, for example those at Caledonia transit camp and similar transit camps throughout the region. The ZLHR cites its intended cases as the following[19]:

a) A full-scale legal challenge of the actions taken by the Minister, the local authorities and the law enforcement agencies against lawfully abiding citizens in terms of the appropriate legislation, valid lease agreements etc. Research should be directed towards the possibility of a class action in order to obtain an order in respect of all those lawfully abiding people who were affected by the Operations. Provision should be made for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Specific emphasis will be placed on the vulnerable groups, and this litigation will be undertaken on a joint basis between ZLHR and ZWLA (Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association).
b) Pre-emptive action to prevent affected people currently being held in holding camps from being removed to unknown destinations by the ZRP or others acting in similar capacity. c) Challenge of the legality of the forced removal to holding camps as it amounts to abduction and illegal detention in such camps (This would take the form of an urgent application through the High Court, either in Bulawayo or Harare).
d) A constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court against the overall Operations and their impact on constitutional and other human rights of affected persons. Senior Counsel will argue this matter in the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.

“All these cases are urgent, but it should be borne in mind that there has been severe destruction of property, loss of livelihoods and unbudgeted expenditure on the part of all affected persons due to the actions of the government, the local authorities and the law enforcement agencies. It will be imperative to file numerous claims for compensation on behalf of these affected people[20].”

2. Zimbabwe National Association of NGOs[21]: Zimbabwe’s National Association of NGOs (NANGO) is Zimbabwe’s largest membership based Organization with over to over 1500 member organizations; however, their ability to function effectively has been on the decline since the 2004 legislation and their unwillingness to comply. NANGO has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute government officials responsible for Operation Murambatsvina.The ICC, unlike the International Court of Justice, can try individuals and investigate crimes, such as drug trafficking and genocide, referred to it by governments as well as the UN Security Council. NANGO reports that relations between the Zimbabwean government and their NGOs have greatly deteriorated since the introduction of the NGO Bill. NANGO has ordered its members to ignore the NGO Bill’s policies until the controversial Bill is approved, which has resulted in numerous difficulties for NGO members[22].

3. Zimbabwe Watch (ZW)[23]: Zimbabwe Watch is an independent coalition of organizations in the Netherlands that works towards the creation of a democratic Zimbabwe which respects human rights and treaties. ZW reports that political violence, torture, murder and disappearances of opposition members, impunity and the disregard of the judicial system are an everyday problem nowadays in Zimbabwe[24]. Western based and Zimbabwean NGO's are working hard at a grassroots and international level to improve the current situation in Zimbabwe[25].In the November 2005 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum in Harare[26], ZW reported that the government has sought to severely control and undermine the critical functions of civic groups, “in order to increase its authoritarian grip on civic society.” ZW is currently focusing on Operation Murambatsvina; in its policy of forced evictions and mass displacement, the Zimbabwean government has violated the human rights of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. ZW reports that their short-term goal at present is to depoliticize humanitarian aid in Zimbabwe.

4. Active Zimbabwe NGOs Provided by Amnesty International Canada:
Amnesty International, Zimbabwe
Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace
Combined Harare Residents Association (CHRA)
Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe
Legal Resources Foundation, Zimbabwe
Media Institute for Southern Africa, Zimbabwe
Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe
National Constitutional Assembly (NCA)
Nonviolent Action and Strategies for Social Change
Southern Africa Human Rights Trust (SAHRIT)
Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA)
Zimbabwe Association for Crime Prevention and the Rehabilitation of the Offender
Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights
Zimbabwe Civic Education Trust (ZIMCET)
Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZimRights)
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

In summary, the government has introduced and selectively used legislation to restrict the rights of the majority of NGOs to freely associate, assemble and express themselves - rights that are internationally recognized. These rights are also guaranteed in Zimbabwe's Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The most controversial pieces of legislation include: the Broadcasting Services Act, the Public Order and Security Act, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act, the Electoral Commission Act, the Private Voluntary Organizations Act and the as yet unsigned Non-Governmental Organizations Act[27]. Specific provisions of these laws have been used by the government to narrow the space for open public debate, silence those perceived to be critical of its policies, and to shield itself from domestic and international scrutiny in ways that have been condemned by the African Commission on Human and People's Rights[28].
Hundreds of NGOs operate across Zimbabwe, promoting health, legal aid, education, and food provision. Mugabe has not signed or implemented the draft law since it was passed almost a year ago but activists report that it has already crippled many NGOs[29].