There are fears that Zimbabwe’s reorganised Supreme Court might rubber-stamp ‘fast-track land reform’
Michael Hartnack
Zimbabwean civil society went on trial this week when the country’s new Chief Justice, Godfrey Chidyausiku, branded criticism of himself “racist”. He refused to withdraw from the first constitutional test case brought before the country’s newly reorganised Supreme Court.
The government is asking the Supreme Court for a declaration that it has a comprehensive land reform programme in place and that there is law and order on Zimbabwe’s white-owned farms.
“The case will decide whether Zimbabwe will be deprived of peaceful means of change, by a decision that approves state violence,” David Hasluck, executive director of the Commercial Farmers’ Union (CFU), warned his 5000 embattled members in a confidential message.
President Robert Mugabe, after assuring visiting members of the International Bar Association he would never pack the Supreme Court with ruling Zanu-PF party loyalists, last month confirmed former minister Chidyausiku as chief justice following the early retirement of Anthony Gubbay (69). He also expanded the court to eight, promoting three new appeal judges considered sympathetic to Zanu-PF.
Gubbay, an internationally respected figure, was forced to quit after militants invaded his courtroom, making death threats.
During 19 months of state sponsored violence, judicial orders have repeatedly been ignored and police have refused to act, but the Supreme Court bench unanimously condemned “wicked things” done on pretext of agitation for land redistribution, including more than 40 murders.
It would be a major coup for Mugabe to win a declaration endorsing his “fast-track land reform” from the reorganised court, through a plea brought on Wednesday. This would enable him to boast to President Thabo Mbeki he had kept pledges to restore the rule of law in redistributing white farms to black Zimbabweans.
But it would extinguish the dying hopes not only of farmers but lawyers, journalists, unionists and social workers for the survival of civil society and for peaceful change.
Last week four reporters were beaten by Mugabe’s militants in the presence of police while visiting a farm from which 20 families of workers had been forced to flee.
And while maize stocks dwindle, food relief was allegedly reserved for party card-holders in drought-stricken Mberengwa, 400 km south-east of Harare.
The Supreme Court under Chidyausiku will have the final say on a vital 30 contested results from the June 2000 parliamentary polls and, more importantly, on the validity of Mugabe’s bid to retain the presi-dency in pending elections.
It will also judge imminent laws to control journalists, containing an expected “patriotic” conduct code and state licensing system.
During nearly two hours of frequently acrimonious exchanges with the bench on Wednesday, Adrian de Bourbon, counsel for the CFU, appealed to Chidyausiku to recuse himself in view of his past statements and conduct, towards not only farmers but the entire white community and Mugabe opponents.
In an affidavit, Hasluck said there was an unavoidable implication Chidyausiku was made chief justice “because of his acceptability to those invading land who are being allowed and encouraged to do so by the government of the day”.
Chidyausiku chaired a 1999 constitutional commission which published advertisements declaring: “White settlers, with the help of the British Government and their international friends, are funding sellout Zimbabweans to buy your rights by urging you to vote no.” Voters nevertheless rejected the judge’s plan to expand Mugabe’s powers.
Chidyausiku claimed Hasluck’s affidavit was “absolutely racist” but declined to specify how when challenged by De Bourbon.
De Bourbon said the three senior appeal judges Nick McNally, Wilson Sandura and Simbarashe Muchechetere should be brought in to hear the case with the newly appointed Vernanda Ziyambi, Luke Malaba and Mishak Cheda, and the long-standing Ahmed Ebrahim. No explanation has been given for the exclusion of McNally, Sandura and Muchechetere from the bench for the case.
Chidyausiku was expected to adjourn the court for several days to consider De Bourbon’s recusal application, but rejected it after a 30-minute tea break. He said detailed reasons would be given at the conclusion of the case.
Three days of argument are due, followed by some weeks’ delay for the five judges’ verdict.
Deputy Attorney General Bharat Patel called on the court to declare a credible programme of land reform is now in place, clearing the way for lower-level courts to ratify moves to seize more than 4 000 designated white-owned farms.
“We have had the Abuja agreement. I am not sure of the significance of that document in law possibly not very much on past experience,” said Patel.
Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge on Wednesday told Parliament Britain must provide funds before Zimbabwe will honour its side of the Abuja terms.
Up to 2000 of the designated farms have been occupied by Mugabe’s militants, in defiance of repeated court orders, but experts reject his claim that 100000 peasant families have already been resettled there successfully. They say 30000 farm workers’ families have been made homeless and destitute.
While ministers claimed all recent incidents were stage-managed by whites, independent reports said violence against farmers and workers was continuing regardless of the Nigerian-brokered Abuja accord. Nearly 600 tobacco farms have been shut down with 75-million kilogrammes of leaf, worth US$225-million, going to waste, said the CFU.
“This case represents a watershed in the history of the judiciary,” warned De Bourbon. “The concept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done is on trial.”
14