Zimbabwe's Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa challenged the validity of the tribunal after its first ruling in 2008 found that a group of white farmers evicted from their land since 2000 were victims of racial discrimination and should be compensated.
Zimbabwe ignored the ruling and its highest court claimed the SADC Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe then moved for a review of the SADC tribunal’s responsibilities, resulting in it being dissolved.
Verdict ignored
Derek Matyszak, Senior Researcher of the Research and Advocacy Unit, said in a new report on the disbanding of the tribunal that the SADC Summit prevaricated on acting on the first instance of non-compliance by Zimbabwe as a member state.
The tribunal in 2008 ruled in favour of 78 white farmers fighting against the seizure of their land by President Robert Mugabe's government, but Harare ignored the verdict.
Farmer Louis Karel Fick then asked SADC leaders to suspend Zimbabwe until it upheld the tribunal's order to return confiscated land or compensate farmers for lost property. However, Zimbabwe's government refused to comply with the SADC tribunal's rulings and instead challenged its legitimacy.
"The Summit members thus failed the very first test of accountability under the rule of law and basic principles of human rights," the RAU report says. "The life of the Tribunal has been rendered lepidopteral. The Zimbabwe issue was merely a convenient cloak under the cover of which the operations of the Tribunal could be restrained by the Summit."
When the Zimbabwean government twice refused to comply with the orders of the Tribunal, it referred each instance of non-compliance to the SADC Summit for “appropriate action”.
Chinamasa belatedly sought to challenge the validity of the Tribunal Protocol, claiming that neither the 2001 Amendment Treaty nor the Tribunal Protocol had been validly brought into force.
Review ignored
SADC responded by commissioning a review of the role, responsibilities, and terms of reference of the Tribunal by an independent consultant and specialist in international law, Dr. Lorand Bartels of Cambridge University. Action against Zimbabwe was deferred pending the outcome of the review.
However, when the Bartels Report was presented, the Summit chose to ignore its fundamental recommendations, and, in May 2011, determined that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was to be altered.
The Tribunal was ordered not to hear any further cases henceforth, whether pending or otherwise, and members of the Tribunal were not to be reappointed or replaced, effectively rendering the Tribunal defunct.
“The axing of the first incarnation of the Tribunal is one of the more shameful episodes in a highly contested field in the annals of SADC history. It is also a giant step backwards in the quest for democracy in the region," said the report.
Post published in: News