Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Justice and peace in a new Zimbabwe: Transitional justice options

 Printable version

After almost a decade marked by violence in Zimbabwe, should there be a formal and public addressing of past human rights abuses? How will this be implemented? This Institute for Security Studies paper argues that Zimbabwe’s particular experiences necessitate a national truth commission. Transitional justice is a core political issue now, not simply a collateral legal or moral one to be left until later.

Suggesting a truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) in facilitating a sustainable national peace for Zimbabweans proceeds from two related premises: i) that human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s modern history have been serious, widespread, persistent, deliberate, systemic, and conducted largely with impunity; and ii) that it is both right in principle and prudent for peacebuilding prospects that these issues and events be formally and publicly acknowledged and addressed in a way that arrests the pattern of  impunity, enables a measure of justice and affords victims due redress, but that does not threaten the possibility that a legitimate transition may occur.

A number of general factors commend the establishment of a truth, justice and reconciliation commission as an element of a comprehensive approach to transitional justice:

• through an official truth body, an accurate record of the country’s past will be established, uncertain events will be clarified, victims will be assured of recognition, and the silence and denial regarding human rights violations will be dealt with;
• such a commission can be a platform for a range of processes, aimed at both addressing matters of principle and ensuring grievances do not undermine the prospects for sustainable peace;
• the work of institutions such as truth commissions can be cathartic and promote reconciliation, lifting the lid on human rights abuses, ending denial that might persist in certain sectors of the community, and creating visible distance from the abusive era and enabling forward movement.

How past injustices will be dealt with by a one-off formal national process will largely be determined by the actual nature of any political transition in Zimbabwe. Following comparison with others’ experiences, the following suggestions are made for a Zimbabwean truth commission:

• The process leading to the decision to establish a TRC can be significant: whether people need, are involved in and know about a TRC will partly determine whether it is legitimate, accepted and effective as the primary formal vehicle for resolving past issues.
• Highly visible international sponsorship may greatly assist a Zimbabwean TRC’s credibility, profile and perceived independence (as well as its funding and skills-base). International civil society organisations may also play an important role.
• Any commission must have clear operational independence of government, including in the interpretation of its written mandate, in developing its procedures, and in its report and recommendations.
• A secure stream of funding is vital to operations and is also directly related to capacity for independence.
• A Zimbabwean commission’s mandate should allow investigation into all forms of serious rights abuses, leaving it to the commission to decide what is most pressing and appropriate.

Access full text