Gukurahundi rears its ugly head again as Parliament discusses Mphoko’s Peace and Reconciliation bill- Part Four

On this particular Bill Mr. Speaker Sir, I wish to mention to you that any outcome is determined by the process and on the process of this Bill, there are a number of issues that I really feel were not considered and have really affected the content of this particular Bill. The first point I wish to raise Mr. Speaker is that the importance of this Bill is such that there was supposed to be very wide consultation of all Zimbabweans to input their views. There were only 10 meetings throughout the country with one meeting held per province and I am sure that is definitely not enough to gather enough information to guide the nation forward.  The numbers of affected people are so many that we needed to open up the process.  Mr. Speaker Sir, the Parliamentary Committee that was collecting oral evidence did not visit my constituency – [HON. MEMBERS:  Inaudible interjections.]–

THE HON. SPEAKER:  Order, order, please at the back there.

SARUWAKA:  Mr. Speaker Sir, in my constituency, Mutasa Central, the Committee that was moving around collecting views did not pass through it.  They held their meeting in Mutare.  I then had an opportunity to meet with the constituents over this particular Bill with the help of the National Transitional Justice Working Group Zimbabwe (NTLWG) and I wish to share the input that came from the people of Mutasa Central.  Mr. Speaker Sir, there were submissions to the fact that the Bill must give the Commission power and capacity to set up a victims’ fund.  This is important because you will realise that many victims need rehabilitation and compensation.  Some of these require simple things like wheelchairs and walking sticks.  For someone who was maimed through violence, up to date, they are unable to do their day-to-day chores; they can be helped if a fund, through this Bill, is established.  The money can be used to support the victims and that way, they can be able to heal.

There is a submission from Mutasa Central where they were saying, they particularly feel that when setting up the Commission, may you please leave out those from the security sector, either as commissioners or as part of the secretariat.  The simple reason advanced by those who made this submission was, unfortunately our security sector has been tainted.  It has been pointed as the perpetrators in most of the instances so much that if they are going to be commissioners, it removes the confidence from the victims hence they (the commissioners/secretariat) will not be able to discharge their duties properly because of their tainted past.  It is a specific request that as you set up your Commission, please make sure that you just pick from the civilians and not those that were participating in the atrocities.

The last point that I wish to make is the interpretation made by Sekuru Lancelot Sakupwanya who is 70 years old now.  In his submission, in terms of the ten year life span of the commission, his understanding, which we agreed as to be probably the best and I am appealing that you take that to be the proper interpretation of the ten year period; is that the term has to be from the day the Commission starts work and not from 2013 when the Constitution was put into effect. We would really appreciate if you consider the tenure to reflect Sekuru Sakupwanya’s interpretation.  Those are my submissions Mr. Speaker Sir.  I thank you.

*HON. CHINOTIMBA:  Thank you Mr. Speaker.  I want to add a few words on this Bill.  I am unhappy about this Bill or I can say I do not like it.  I do not want the Bill to be there.  The Bill should begin with who started the war, who fired the first shot and who first killed who.  We are hurt because we were in camps then.

Continued next page

(314 VIEWS)