The Kgalema Motlanthe-led commission of inquiry into Zimbabwe’s post-election violence on August 1 wrapped up the first round of its Harare public hearings with a press conference.
When asked if the commission was going to ask the head of the army, as well as the presidium, namely President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his vice-president, Constantino Chiwenga, to appear before it, seeing as some of the witnesses felt these were the people to blame for the August 1 shootings, Motlanthe’s answer was “no”.
He said the commission would hear a testimony from whoever the army chose to field.
Motlanthe said they had no mandate to demand to speak to the leadership. He explained that their mandate was to inquire into the causes and reasons for the post-election involvement of the army. What they were investigating was whether it was necessary to deploy the army.
This is odd because it sounds like they are not investigating the army, which, in the eyes of many Zimbabweans, was the perpetrator. They are investigating the protesters, who are the victims. Considering that this commission is paid for by state funds, shouldn’t its mandate be to seek justice for the victims?
VIOLENT protests erupted in Harare two days after the election, when MDC Alliance supporters said they were defending their votes against electoral fraud. Picture: African News Agency (ANA)
Let us revisit the commission’s terms of reference. They are:
to inquire into the circumstances leading to the August 1 post-election violence;
to identify the actors and their leaders, their motive and strategies employed in the protests;
to inquire into the intervention by the Zimbabwe police in the maintenance of law and order;
to investigate the circumstances which necessitated the involvement of the military in assisting in the maintenance of law and order;
to consider whether the degree of force used was appropriate to the ensuing threat of public safety, law and order;
to ascertain the extent of damage/injury caused thereof;
to investigate any other matters which the commission deems appropriate and relevant to the enquiry;
to make suitable recommendations;
to report to the president in writing, the result of the inquiry within three months from the date of swearing in of the commissioners.
These terms of reference make me question whose interests this commission is serving. Public interest or political and personal interest?
The starting point of this investigation is flawed.
The first four terms give the impression that whoever came up with these terms blames the victim. The terms presume that the protesters did something that caused them to be shot at.
The commission seems to be investigating to what extent the protesters brought the shootings on themselves.
The wording on the first four points; which involve the behaviour of the protesters is strong, direct and concise. To inquire. To identify. To investigate. The wording on the point which involves the army softens and is vague. To “consider”, they say.
But it is the final point that’s most worrying. The findings are to be given directly to the president in writing.
This is a dangerous loophole considering Emmerson Mnangagwa’s history with previous such inquiries.
There was a Gukurahundi inquiry in the 80s named the Chihambakwe Commission of Inquiry. And on completion, Emmerson Mnangagwa, then Robert Mugabe’s minister of state security, announced that the report would not be made public.
What prevents him pulling the same stunt with Motlanthe’s report?
This commission looks like one big cover-up and act of trickery. Its members were hand-picked by the commander-in-chief of our national defence forces, the only person permitted by our constitution to sanction/order army operations.
If this were in national interest and under normal circumstances, he would be the first accused in the killing of civilians by the army. So how does an alleged perpetrator get to hand-pick members of the commission of inquiry?
The appointment of Motlanthe as chairperson seems like a move calculated to give credibility to the commission. At face value one would think out of integrity he would have turned down the appointment just from the terms of reference clearly biased towards protecting the Zimbabwean president and the criminals around him.
Imagine you were raped then your assailant gets to select all the jurors. They tell you their mandate is to examine to what extent your actions/conduct before the rape seduced the assailant and forced him to attack you. That’s Mnangagwa’s commission of enquiry for you.
Thandekile Moyo has a BSc Hons degree in geography and environmental studies from Midlands State University in Gweru, Zimbabwe. She has been a freelance writer since September 2016 and has a weekly column in The Standard newspaper.