Previous 33 / 56 Next

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rjgh~s Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 144. The Respondent State contends that the submissions by the l Complainant as it pertains to Article I 7 of the African Charter are not merited for one or more of the following reasons: a) The Victim was charged with contempt of Parliament and not contempt of ZANU PF, and in any event the complainant in the Victim's case was not ZANU PF but Parliament; b) Parliament is a separate land distinct entity from ZANU PF; c) If the Victim's argument is to be adcepted, then members of his own party could not have adjudicated, las based on the Complainant's argument they would be considered committers of the contempt. 145. The Respondent State submits th~t in a l~llJi]:J:~~of Zimbabwean Supreme Court cases, it has been held that a fil1.gfngof:gtlilt by Parliament on contempt offence is not a crime lin th~::q9i~venti~~al sense. When dealing w~th these contempt offences, ~.adi:a1)1~nf<:f~?,~~~~~J:~ti~P'~~1~,!Jourt, does not SIt as a court of laws. It exercisesits.own Juqs9,IctIon"angiiPowers conferred upon it by the Privileges.slmmunities and P'O~e.F~of Parliament Act. The Respondent therefore'ii~16nten~s,Jhat: ,~ny failui~~J?~:;:Parliament, when sitting as court :0 ac!heI:~~t~t.s~,~ta~~ p~%~~~:d~res foll~we~ in a c~urt of law does not necessarily II1:~antha:h~!.!snhearll¢g\~snot fair or Impartial. r .' "" , '~,~:~: '.'\, " <,.~»;,;"7 146. The Respondent S,tiite ,,§:~!St9:;.dJ:l8:,iitRreme);C:ourtcase of Mutasa v Makombe wherein it~was,stat~a:,thif:45 I ,;,tir>;~,,:<-t; t In the court of '~~rliam~~f; the p'f~~~e;~re ~~f~~~~h~entallY and tot~lly different., In the court of Parliament due process<:l~;:)~~tisfledby the mere movrng of a motion setting out the. allegation, debate and vo@g)'bn the motion. At the end of the debate the question of. ~ verdict and pum'shmeJ,itris determined by a majority vote of the Members of Parliament. More often;'thar{'nbt, either by design or otherwise, the vote to~9-E:t.~rmine the outcome of any debate is JIong party or partisan lines. ~iC;{J?:~I;r>'." , '" Z,.' ., c,' • I r 147. The \~esPQ!).dent State contends thft the Complainant's argument of arbitrariness 0;i-"'the:,ba,sis,that the Privileges Committee failed to present its findings>~t-"the 4th':.S~ssion of Parliafnent and only presented its report to the 5th ~~ssion o{Parliament in contravention of the rules, have not been subst~f\ti~ted. The Responderh avers that the Complainant erroneously r~tied on Standing Order INo 159 to contend that there was need to officially resuscitate the issue Iin the next session, as the Order relates to Portfolio Committees and Js such bears no relevance to the Complainant's argument. : I 148. The Respondent State submits thatlthere was nothing irregul~~gg!~ the Privileges Committee presenting its findings to the 5th Ses~~ ~th'e1/4rtvD same Parliament, as it was still the same Parliament wi~~./~4he~ !§,e,,',, ,'U, 45 Mutasa v Makombe 1998 (1) SA 397 (ZSC) at 402 E-G I I I I z <{ I o \, Ci:. ~ 11',<.) \U ?o ~.\ 6. '?-o,S' .5'/0 o t (/) I ~ (5 !C' Q ~"" ~<;) Oil1ME ET o-c.5 "::,"";.,~.~"!.',~ k'l' en p ,. 'I.< s If "" Pag 32 6f'5'5-P,\~ <?<;::0'< , ~ ~,~ I, ~ 0 I- AU-UP, '1,\'", \. ~~ , ('~~';;.:r' {('-"I;1,)]JJf "" ..... -2.: ~ ....... P ,r; 0 ~ ,c<"o~ ,/,.-:? 'If

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Damages and Compensation
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Investigation
Land Expropriation
Land Rights
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Property
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: During a parliamentary debate, the Victim was verbally assaulted by the Minister of Justice and became so upset that he pushed the Minister of Justice to the ground. A parliamentary committee was established to try the Victim for contempt of Parliament, and the Victim was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 12 months in prison with hard labour. The Complainant states that the trial was a continuation of a targeted campaign against the Victim, in which attacks were made on his farm and against him, his wife, and the workers on his farm. Additionally, the Complainant states that the Victim had his land confiscated by the Respondent State. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that even though the perpetrators, who invaded the Victim's land, were not acting in pursuance of the government's policy, the fact that their actions were linked to the President's speech, where he singled out the victim for his political views, established a sufficient link between the actions of the Respondent State's discriminatory stance against the Victim's political views, and the harm suffered by the Victim, to constitute a violation of Article 2. The Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 5 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and try the perpetrators who assaulted the Victim and his wife. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that detaining the Victim without allowing him access to a legal representative of his choice violated Article 6. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, in the Parliamentary hearing, the Chairperson exercised the dual function of being the Complainant and the adjudicator, contravening the appropriate safeguards of natural justice that should have been followed. The Commission found violations of Articles 10, 11 and 13, stating that the President's speech, which targeted the Victim because of his political association and opinion, motivated the attacks against the Victim, and therefore contravened his right to freedom of expression, association and participation in government. The Commission found a violation of Article 14 stating that, while the Respondent State may legitimately expropriate land in support of public interest, a key requirement is that there must be appropriate and timely compensation and, in the present case, the delay in compensation, and the manner in which the land was confiscated, violated Article 14. The Commission found a violation of Article 18 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the attack against the victim and his family, and further because it was the speech of the President that incited the attacks against the Victim. The Commission found that the Respondent State's failure to protect the Victim's Charter rights also means that Article 1 was violated. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay fair and adequate compensation to the victim for the acquisition of his property, and the loss of his equipment and livestock, in accordance with the principles guiding expropriation of private property under international law. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to independently investigate and punish all non-State actors responsible for the attacks against the Victim and his family and to report back to the Commission on the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Zimbabwe

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 9, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

Feb 3, 2005 ~ Mar 9, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -19.015438

Longitude: 29.154857

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v Zimbabwe.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Notifications