Status on the Signature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Instruments by SADC Member States

Status on the Signature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Instruments by SADC Member States – 11 May 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The significance of signing and ratifying regional, continental and international anti-corruption instruments or treaties and bringing them into force at the earliest possible moment cannot be overemphasized.  The signature, ratification and domestication of these instruments and treaties is urgent considering the deleterious effects of corruption on African development. However, the lack of the progress thereof, is devastatingly worrying. This triggered an interest in this assessment which looks at the progress of signature and ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption (SPAC), the AU Convention on preventing and combating Corruption (AUCPCC), and the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) by the SADC member states. This is a third assessment of this nature commissioned the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa, to monitor and report on progress made by SADC Member States vis-à-vis the signature and ratification thereof. It does not look at the extent to which the Member States have domesticated the same. This will be part of future assessments that are of great interest to researchers and networks such as the UNCAC Coalition.

 

In a nutshell, the assessment made a number of findings. Firstly, the status of ratification stands at 87% for SADC Protocol against Corruption, 100% for UN Convention against Corruption and 67% for the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption.  Of the 3 Conventions, the ratification of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption is the lowest since it stands at 67% among the 15 SADC Member States. There will be huge value if one interrogates why AU Member States do not all seem to support such an important ‘assegai’ or tool against corruption, which they drafted and adopted themselves. Why did Africa come up with the Convention in the first place? Where they forced to come up with the same? Are they genuinely interested in fighting corruption? All these questions need answers.

 

The signing of these three leading conventions stands at 93%, 87% and 80% for the SADC Protocol against Corruption, UN Convention against Corruption and the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption respectively. Again the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption registered the lowest. Refer to Table 1 below for more information.

 

Table 1: Status of Signature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Instruments

  Number of SADC Member states out of a total of 15 signing and ratifying the SADC Protocol against Corruption Number of SADC Member states out of a total of 15 signing and ratifying the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption Number of SADC Member states out of a total of 15 signing and ratifying the UN Convention against Corruption
Signature 14 out of 15 SADC Member States signed (93%) 12 out of 15 SADC Member States signed (80%) 13 out of 15 SADC Member States signed (87%)
Ratification 13 out of 15 SADC Member States ratified (87%) 10 out of 15 SADC Member States ratified (67%) 15 out of 15 SADC Member States ratified (100%)

 

Furthermore, it would be a remiss if this assessment fails to name and single-out the countries still lagging behind. Table 2 below shows that Madagascar is the only SADC Member State that has not signed the SADC Protocol against Corruption. In addition, Madagascar joins Seychelles to make the only two countries that have not ratified the same instrument.

 

Table 2: SADC Member States Lagging Behind

Anti-Corruption Instruments SADC Member States that have not signed SADC Member States that have not ratified
1)     SADC Protocol against Corruption o   Madagascar o   Madagascar

o   Seychelles

2)     AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption o   Botswana

o   Malawi

o   Seychelles

o   Angola

o   Botswana

o   Democratic Republic of Congo

o   Mauritius

o   Swaziland

3)     UN Convention against Corruption o   Botswana

o   Democratic Republic of Congo

o   –

 

The AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption appears to be the most unpopular since it has registered the lowest in both being signed and ratified by SADC Member States. African Governments should be interrogated on why such an important instrument has lost its support.

 

In keeping with the above, the following recommendations are made:

 

  • The governments of Madagascar and Seychelles should ratify the SADC Protocol against Corruption;
  • The governments of Angola, Botswana, DRC, Mauritius and Swaziland should ratify the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption;
  • Pursuant to Article 11 of the SADC Protocol against Corruption, SADC Member States should establish a Committee to oversee the implementation of the Protocol.[1] This is long overdue considering the destructive effects of corruption in Southern Africa.

 

 


 

  1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 

In 2007 and 2012, the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa) commissioned studies aimed at ascertaining the status of signature[2] and ratification[3] of the SADC Protocol against Corruption (SPAC)[4], AU Convention on preventing and combating Corruption (AUCPCC),[5] and the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)[6] by SADC member states.[7]

 

The 2007 study produced a report[8] which was followed by a number of advocacy activities. Since then there has been a lot of progress as shown below:

 

  1. The DRC and Mozambique ratified the SPAC on 19 May 2008 and 28 December 2007 respectively;
  2. Malawi and Seychelles ratified AUCPCC on 26 November 2007 and 1 June 2008 respectively;
  3. Botswana, DRC, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia ratified the UNCAC on 27 June 2011, 23 September 2010, 4 December 2007, 9 April 2008, and 7 December 2007 respectively

 

The 2012 study on the same subject made the following findings:

  1. Swaziland remained as the only SADC member state that had not ratified the UNCAC;
  2. Madagascar had neither signed nor ratified the SPAC whilst Seychelles signed but had not ratified the same; and
  3. Angola, Botswana, DRC, Mauritius and Swaziland had not ratified the AUCPCC, whilst Botswana had neither signed nor ratified the same.

 

The recommendations made through the 2012 assessment report were that:

  • The Kingdom of Swaziland should ratify the UNCAC, since this had reputational implications on the country and the rest of the SADC member states;
  • The governments of Madagascar and Seychelles should ratify the SPAC; and
  • The governments of Angola, Botswana, DRC, Mauritius and Swaziland should ratify the AUCPCC.

 

After the publication of the 2012 report a number of advocacy activities were carried out. These included the following:

  1. On 23 August 2012, a letter was sent to E. Dr Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini pleading that Swaziland ratifies the AUCPCC  and the UNCAC.[9]
  2. On 23 August 2012, the Botswana Government received a letter from the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa informing the Botswana Government that it had neither signed nor ratified the AU Convention on preventing and combating Corruption (AUCPCC).[10] A response from the government showed that the letter was received and sent to the President’s private office.[11] Later on the 3rd of September 2012, the Government confirmed receipt of the letter. [12]
  3. On 28 August 2012, the SADC Secretariat through Dr Tomaz Augusto Salomão was asked to motivate its member states to take the subject of corruption very seriously by ratifying anti-corruption instruments and domesticating them and where possible give technical support on the implementation or domestication thereof. Furthermore, it was urged to set up and empower institutional arrangements for the implementation of Article 11 of the SPAC which provides for the establishment of a Committee[13]
  4. On the 28th of August 2012, the Government of Mauritius was notified that it had signed the AU Convention on preventing and combating Corruption but had not ratified it. [14]
  5. The Governments of DRC and Angola were also urged to sign and ratify anti-corruption treaties.
  6. The report was widely circulated globally and through http://www.kubatana.net.

 

 

During that time there were a number of challenges in some countries. In Madagascar, Andre Rajoelina was the President of the transitional High authority and did not have the power/right to commit the country to any international treaties. [15] The same was the case in other SADC Member States where there were conflicts.[16]

 

2.     PROGRESS ON THE SIGNATURE AND RATIFICATION OF THE SPAC, AUCPCC and UNCAC

The following findings were made on the status of signature and ratification of the SPAC, AUCPCC and the UNCAC by SADC member states:

2.1 Signature and Ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption (SPAC)

The SPAC is one of the flagship instruments of the SADC for preventing and combating corruption in the region. According to the SADC (2011:12), the Protocol was signed by 14 SADC Heads of State and Government in Malawi on 14 August 2001. It was ratified by the majority of the SADC member states as depicted in Table 1 below[17].

 

The only two countries that have not ratified are Madagascar and Seychelles. On the 6th of May 2017, the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa wrote to the SADC Focal Persons for both Seychelles[18] and Madagascar[19] seeking feedback on their plans on the same subject. Part of the letter to the Government of Seychelles reads “We have noted that Seychelles signed the SADC Protocol against Corruption on 14 August 2001. However, we have noted that there is no indication on whether or not you ratified the protocol and hence this enquiry” whilst an extract of the letter to the Government of Madagascar also reads “We have observed that there is no information to show that Madagascar has both signed and ratified the  SADC Protocol against Corruption and hence this enquiry”.

 

On the 8th of May 2017, the Government of Seychelles confirmed that the Government had been notified.[20] In its response, the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa urged the Government to ratify the Protocol.[21]

 

Table 3 below gives the detailed status of all the 15 SADC Member States.

 

Table 3: Signature and ratification of the SADC Protocol against corruption

 

Country Heads of State and Government[22] Date of signing Date of ratification
1.       Angola H.E. José Eduardo dos Santos 14 August 2001 17 July 2005
2.       Botswana H.E. President Lt. Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama 14 August 2001 14 August 2001
3.       DRC H.E. President Joseph Kabila Kabange 14 August 2001 19 May 2008
4.       Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 14 August 2001 29 July 2003
5.       Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial No No
6.       Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika 14 August 2001 2 September 2002
7.       Mauritius Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 14 August 2001 4 January 2002
8.       Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 14 August 2001 28 December 2007
9.       Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 14 August 2001 23 June 2005
10.   Seychelles H.E. James Alix Michel 14 August 2001 No
11.   South Africa H.E. President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma 14 August 2001 15 May 2003
12.   Swaziland His Majesty, King Mswati III 14 August 2001 1 August 2006
13.   Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 14 August 2001 20 August 2003
14.   Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 14 August 2001 8 July 2003
15.   Zimbabwe H.E. President Robert Gabriel Mugabe 14 August 2001 8 October 2004

 

However,  it appears that the SADC Secretariat and the Member States are not demonstrating full commitment towards the implementation of the provisions of the Protocol itself. For instance, Article 11 of the Protocol provides for the establishment of a Committee[23] but shockingly the Committee is not yet in place after 16 years of existence of the protocol.

 

2.2 Signature and Ratification of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC)

The AUCPCC, which entered into force on 5 August 2006, was adopted by the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Maputo, Mozambique on 11 July 2003. According to the African Union (2010:2) as at the 6th of August 2010, the AUCPCC had been signed by 45 member states and ratified by 31 members only.

 

As at 2012, the African Union Advisory Board on Corruption (2017), states that the number of ratifiers rose from 31 to 34 in 2012[24]. At the continental level the following Member States ratified the treaty as at the year 2012: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Kenya, Libya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Table 4 below shows that there has not been much progress by SADC Member States in ratifying the Convention.

 

Table 4: Signature and ratification of the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption by SADC member states

 

Country Heads of State and Government[25] Date of signing Date of ratification
1.       Angola H.E. José Eduardo dos Santos 22 January 2007 No
2.       Botswana H.E. President Lt. Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama No No
3.       DRC H.E. President Joseph Kabila Kabange 5 December 2003 No
4.       Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 27 February 2004 26 October 2004
5.       Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial 28 February 2004 6 October 2004
6.       Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika No 26 November 2007
7.       Mauritius Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 6 July 2004 No
8.       Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 15 December 2003 2 August 2006
9.       Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 9 December 2003 5 August 2004
10.   Seychelles H.E. James Alix Michel 1 June 2008
11.   South Africa H.E. President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma 16 March 2004 11 November 2005
12.   Swaziland His Majesty, King Mswati III 7 December 2004 No
13.   Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 5 November 2003 22 February 2005
14.   Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 03 August 2005 30 March 2007
15.   Zimbabwe H.E. President Robert Gabriel Mugabe 18 November 2003 17 December 2006

 

2.3 Signature and Ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)

According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (2016), Swaziland which was the only SADC Member State that had not ratified finally ratified the UNCAC on 24 September 2012. Table 5 below shows the status of signature and ratification by SADC member states.[26] However, Botswana and DRC have not signed the same.

 

Table 5: Signature and ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption

 

Country Heads of State and Government[27] Date of Signature Date of Ratification
1.       Angola H.E. José Eduardo dos Santos 10 December 2003 29 August 2006
2.       Botswana H.E. President Lt. Gen. Seretse Khama Ian Khama No 27 June 2011
3.       DRC H.E. President Joseph Kabila Kabange No 23 September 2010
4.       Lesotho His Royal Highness King Letsie III 16 September 2005 16 September 2005
5.       Madagascar H. E. RAJAONARIMAMPIANINA Hery Martial 10 December 2003 22 September 2004
6.       Malawi His Excellency Prof. Arthur Peter Mutharika 21 September 2004 4 December 2007
7.       Mauritius Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, GCSK, CSK, PhD 9 December 2003 15 December 2004
8.       Mozambique H.E. Filipe Nyusi 25 May 2004 9 April 2008
9.       Namibia H.E. Dr. Hage Geingob 9 December 2003 3 August 2004
10.   Seychelles H.E. James Alix Michel 27 February 2004 16 March 2006
11.   South Africa H.E. President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma 9 December 2003 22 November 2004
12.   Swaziland His Majesty, King Mswati III 15 September 2005 24 September 2012[28]
13.   Tanzania H.E. Dr. John Pombe Joseph Magufuli 9 December 2003 25 May 2005
14.   Zambia H.E. Edgar Lungu 11 December 2003 7 December 2007
15.   Zimbabwe H.E. President Robert Gabriel Mugabe 20 February 2004 8 March 2007

3.     CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The status of signature and ratification by SADC Member States is encouraging. However, the usefulness thereof,  will be in doubt if corruption remains uncurbed at the national level. Southern Africa has great potential of being prosperous, yet some of countries in the region remain poor due to bad governance, mal-administration and corruption.

 

In keeping with the findings of this assessment, the following recommendations are made:

 

  • The governments of Madagascar and Seychelles should ratify the SADC Protocol against Corruption;
  • The governments of Angola, Botswana, DRC, Mauritius and Swaziland should ratify the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption;
  • Pursuant to Article 11 of the SADC Protocol against Corruption, SADC Member States should establish a Committee to oversee the implementation of the Protocol.[29] This is long overdue considering the deleterious effects of corruption in Southern Africa.

[1] Article  11 of the SPAC, provides for institutional arrangements for implementation of SPAC through the setting up of a Committee to oversee implementation.

  1. A Committee consisting of State Parties is hereby established to oversee the implementation of this Protocol.
  2. Each State Party shall report to the Committee within one year of becoming a Party, on the progress made in the implementation of this Protocol. Thereafter, each State Party shall report to the Committee every two years.
  3. The Committee shall, inter-alia, be responsible for the following:
  • gathering and disseminating information amongst State Parties;
  • organising training programmes as and when appropriate;
  • evaluating programmes to be put in place and a programme of co-operation for the implementation of this Protocol; and
  • providing any other related assistance to State Parties as and when appropriate;
  • reporting to Council on a regular basis on the progress made by each State Party in complying with the provisions of this Protocol.

[2] Signature to a convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. This means that the signature does not establish the consent to be bound but is an important means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. In other words signature to a treaty qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It is significant since it also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty. (Arts.10 and 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969)

[3] On the other side, ratification is an international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty. Ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty. [Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

[4] The SADC Protocol against Corruption (SPAC): According to the SADC (2011:12), the Protocol was signed by 14 SADC Heads of State and Government in Malawi on 14 August 2001. This excluded Madagascar that only joined SADC in August 2005.[4] In line with Article 3 of SPAC its purpose is:

  1. to promote and strengthen the development, by each of the State Parties, of mechanisms needed to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption in the public and private sector,
  2. to promote, facilitate and regulate cooperation among the State Parties to ensure the effectiveness of measures and actions to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption in the public and private sectors; and
  3. to foster the development and harmonization of policies and domestic legislation of the State Parties relating to the prevention, detection, punishment and eradication of corruption in the public and private sectors.

[5] The AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC):  The AUCPCC, which entered into force on 5 August 2006, was adopted by the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Maputo, Mozambique on 11 July 2003. The objectives of the Convention are to:

  1. Promote and strengthen the development in Africa by each State Party, of mechanisms required to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption and related offences in the public and private sectors.
  2. Promote, facilitate and regulate cooperation among the State Parties to ensure the effectiveness of measures and actions to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption and related offences in Africa.
  3. Coordinate and harmonize the policies and legislation between State Parties for the purposes of prevention, detection, punishment and eradication of corruption on the continent.

[6] The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC):  The UNCAC entered into force on 14 December 2005. The purposes of UNCAC are:

  1. To promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and effectively;
  2. To promote, facilitate and support international cooperation and technical assistance in the prevention of and fight against corruption, including in asset recovery;
  3. To promote integrity, accountability and proper management of public affairs and public property.

[7] Chinhamo, O and Chaumba, A (2012). Progress on Signature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Instruments by SADC Member States: Who is lagging Behind among SADC Member States? [online] Available at https://actsouthernafrica.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/24-august-2012-progress-report-on-the-status-of-signature-and-ratification-of-anti-corruption-treaties-by-sadc-member-states.pdf [Accessed on 5 May 2017]

[8]Chinhamo, O and Shumba, G (2007). Report on the Status of Signature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Treaties by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Member States. [online]. Available at http://archive.kubatana.net/docs/demgg/act-sa_sadc_signature_of_treaties_070730.pdf [Accesed on 6 May 2017]

[9] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (23 August 2012) Urgent letter to H.E. Dr Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini- Swaziland- Signature and Ratification of Anti-CorruptionTreaties. E-mail to: Mabuza, S. (mabuzasindi@gov.sz).

[10] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (23 August 2012) Letter to H.E. President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama;. E-mail to: Ramsay, J; (jramsay@gov.bw).

[11] Ramsay, J. (jramsay@gov.bw) (23 August 2012) Letter to H.E. President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama;. E-mail to: Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa; (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com).

[12] Dinale, L. (lesegodinale@gmail.com) (3 September 2012) Letter to H.E. President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama;. E-mail to: Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa; (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com).

[13] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (28 August 2012) Letter to Dr Tomaz Augusto Salomão- Status ofSignature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Treaties by SADC Member States. E-mail to: Salomão, T. (Penehupifolm@rocketmail.com and LMartin@sadc.int).

[14] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (28 August 2012) Letter to Dr Tomaz Augusto Salomão- Status ofSignature and Ratification of Anti-Corruption Treaties by SADC Member States. E-mail to: Salomão, T. (Penehupifolm@rocketmail.com and LMartin@sadc.int).

[15]  Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (28 August 2012) Mauritius recommended to ratify the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. E-mail to: RAMGOOLAM, N. (pmo@mail.gov.mu).

[16] ibid

[17] SADC (2011). SADC Treaty and Protocols Status of Protocols in Force. [online]. Available from: http://www.sadc.int/files/5113/3162/1668/STATUS_OF_SIGNATURE__RATIFICATION_OF_PROTOCOLS_REVISED-_24-11-2011.pdf. [Accessed on 20 August 2012].

[18] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (5 May 2017) Letter to Mr Maurice Loustau-Lalanne. Status on the Ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption. E-mail to: Lalane, M. L. (mloustaulalanne@mfa.gov.sc and copied to kracombo@mfa.gov.sc, nconstant@mfa.gov.sc, cmederic@seychelleshc.co.za).

[19] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (5 May 2017) Letter to Ms. Vololomiora Lalanirina Rabarijaona. Status on the Ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption. E-mail to: Rabarijaona, V.L. (miorarabarijaona@yahoo.fr and copied dcrmae@gmail.com, nirina.angie2013@gmail.com,ambamad.pta@infodoor.co.za).

[20] Lablache, F. (FLablache@mfa.gov.s) (8 May 2017) Letter to Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa;. E-mail to: (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com).

[21] Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa. (actsouthernafrica@gmail.com) (8 May 2017) Letter to Mr Maurice Loustau-Lalanne. Status on the Ratification of the SADC Protocol against Corruption. E-mail to: Lalane, M. L. (mloustaulalanne@mfa.gov.sc and copied to kracombo@mfa.gov.sc, nconstant@mfa.gov.sc, cmederic@seychelleshc.co.za).

[22] SADC (2017). Member States. [online] Available at http://www.sadc.int/member-states/[Accessed on 9 May 2017]

[23] Article  11 of the SPAC, provides for institutional arrangements for implementation of SPAC through the setting up of a Committee to oversee implementation.

  1. A Committee consisting of State Parties is hereby established to oversee the implementation of this Protocol.
  2. Each State Party shall report to the Committee within one year of becoming a Party, on the progress made in the implementation of this Protocol. Thereafter, each State Party shall report to the Committee every two years.
  3. The Committee shall, inter-alia, be responsible for the following:
  • gathering and disseminating information amongst State Parties;
  • organising training programmes as and when appropriate;
  • evaluating programmes to be put in place and a programme of co-operation for the implementation of this Protocol; and
  • providing any other related assistance to State Parties as and when appropriate;
  • reporting to Council on a regular basis on the progress made by each State Party in complying with the provisions of this Protocol.

[24] African Union Advisory Board on Corruption (2017). Status of ratification of the Convention on Corruption. [online]. Available at http://www.auanticorruption.org/auac/about/category/status-of-the-ratification. [Accessed on 6 May 2017]

[25] SADC (2017). Member States. [online] Available at http://www.sadc.int/member-states/[Accessed on 9 May 2017]

[26] UNODC (2017). United Nations Convention against Corruption. Signature and Ratification Status as of 12 December 2016. [online] Available at https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html [Accessed on 6 May 2017]

[27] SADC (2017). Member States. [online] Available at http://www.sadc.int/member-states/[Accessed on 9 May 2017]

[28]UNODC (2017). United Nations Convention against Corruption . Signature and Ratification Status as of 12 December 2016. [online] Available at https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html [Accessed on 6 May 2017]

[29] Article 11 of the SPAC, provides for institutional arrangements for implementation of SPAC through the setting up of a Committee to oversee implementation.

  1. A Committee consisting of State Parties is hereby established to oversee the implementation of this Protocol.
  2. Each State Party shall report to the Committee within one year of becoming a Party, on the progress made in the implementation of this Protocol. Thereafter, each State Party shall report to the Committee every two years.
  3. The Committee shall, inter-alia, be responsible for the following:
  • gathering and disseminating information amongst State Parties;
  • organising training programmes as and when appropriate;
  • evaluating programmes to be put in place and a programme of co-operation for the implementation of this Protocol; and
  • providing any other related assistance to State Parties as and when appropriate;
  • reporting to Council on a regular basis on the progress made by each State Party in complying with the provisions of this Protocol.
Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Forgotten Town of Thirsty Residents- The State of the Water Crisis in Redcliff, Zimbabwe

A FORGOTTEN TOWN OF THIRSTY RESIDENTS: THE STATE OF THE WATER CRISIS IN REDCLIFF, ZIMBABWE (19 April 2017)

1.     INTRODUCTION

Every person in Zimbabwe has the right to safe, clean and potable water.[1] The Human Right to Water and Sanitation (HRWS) was recognised as a human right by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 28 July 2010[2]. The HRWS is part and parcel of international law, by reference to human rights treaties, declarations and other relevant standards.[3] Furthermore, it is important to note that the Constitution of Zimbabwe does not only recognise this right to water but goes an extra mile to domesticate the right to food.[4] Court precedents such as the landmark ruling by Justice Bhunu in Mushoriwa v City of Harare HH 195/2014 speaks volumes about the importance attached to the enjoyment of the right to water. This is further cemented by Justice Muremba in Hove v City of Harare HH 205/2016.

Nevertheless, the human/legal right to water and sanitation is not being respected and enjoyed in some parts of the country. The town of Redcliff close to Kwekwe is one of the towns characterised by acute water shortages, water cuts and their attendant problems that include but not limited to outbreaks of water borne diseases, flight of investors and closure/downscaling of business operations.

The water supply to the town has never been stable before and after the closure of ZISCO Steel and it became worse after the Municipality of Redcliff (local authority) took over the water management role from ZISCO/NewZim Steel. It is now crystal clear that the local authority has no capacity to manage water supply in the most effective and efficient manner.

According to residents’ testimonies, the situation deteriorated since the 24th of October 2016, when there was absolutely no water supply in most parts of Rutendo, Simbi Park, Torwood and Millennium Park.[5]  However, it does not mean that there was water supply before the 24th of October 2016 but the supply was sporadic and infrequent.

In Simbi Park, the residents had no water supply for many years, yet the residents continue to be billed as if they have access to this basic commodity.[6]

In protest on the 19th of April 2017, residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders affected by the water crisis under the Municipality of Redcliff took to the streets demanding the following:

  • The immediate resignation of the Honourable Mayor, Councillors and Management of the Municipality of Redcliff based on allegations that they had failed to run the affairs of the local authority;
  • That the Ministry of Local Government appoints a Commission to run the affairs of the local authority;
  • The setting up a Commission of Enquiry into the mismanagement of Funds, corruption and other irregularities; and
  • That the City of Kwekwe and the ZINWA take-over water management in Redcliff.[7]

 

It had also been alleged that some individuals were taking advantage of the water crisis to enrich themselves through selling water to desperate water seekers. This was very common in the town and some well respected senior public officials were also implicated.

The outcry from the residents thus motivated an investigation that culminated into this report.

2.     FINDINGS

Through face to face interviews and the review of secondary data, the following findings were made:

2.1  Reality of the Water Crisis

A resident of Rutendo Township confirmed that there was no water supply at his house situated close to Mutegude Shopping Centre since the 24th of October 2016.[8] In order to get water supply, his family travels one kilometre away to a borehole, situated opposite the Rutendo Town Council Administration office where water seekers pay US$1 to have access to it. Almost all the time, they take close to two hours to access it because of the long queue from thirsty residents.[9] The picture below that was taken on the 19th of April 2017 shows residents largely comprised of women, and children queuing for water at a borehole which was sunk by a well-wisher in the area.

Previously the situation was better since they were offered free water by the Rutendo Islamic Centre before it was forced to stop by some government authorities.[10]

In the absence of water supply, the situation would have been better if the local authority had not refused well-wishers who wanted to drill boreholes in the suburbs. The first attempt was made by Mr. Matorino, who was born and bred in Redcliff and felt that he wanted to plough back into the community that groomed him. A few boreholes were sunk in Torwood and it is alleged that the local authority and politicians in the area stopped him. To that end, boreholes that were planned for Simbi Park and some parts of Rutendo were stopped.[11] It is unfortunate that the residents of Redcliff have gone for so long without water supply yet the local authority continues to demand payment without supplying water indicates that the authority is both despotic and tyrannical.

The majority of the residents visited have dug wells at their houses, without which the situation would have been dire. Concerns were raised that most of the wells are shallow and contaminated with sewer, and other chemical contaminants from near-by industrial establishments. There are also many cases in which children drowned and died when they fell into these death traps.

2.2  Causes of the Water Crisis

First and foremost, it is important to highlight at the outset that the situation obtaining clearly demonstrates the local authority’s lack of capacity to provide effective water management to its residents. Many views were expressed on the causes of the water crisis in Redcliff, starting with the view that the City of Kwekwe and its management have been too cruel to disconnect water supply to the Municipality of Redcliff for the love of money at the detriment of human life. There would be nothing wrong for the City of Kwekwe to institute legal proceedings against the Municipality of Redcliff to recover the unpaid water bills but disconnecting water supply and causing suffering on the people shows the leadership’s insensitivity to human dignity. It is alleged that on the 9th of April 2017, the Honourable Mayor of the Municipality of Redcliff, addressed residents and informed them that they owed the City of Kwekwe millions of dollars in unpaid water bills and as a result they were disconnected by Kwekwe. [12]

The local authority emphasises that the residents were to blame for the water crisis since they were not paying for the water that they consume. It is alleged that the local authority expects around US$600,000 per month yet they are only receiving around US$30,000. As a result, the local authority has failed to pay its obligations to the City of Kwekwe, where the debt is now around US$2 million. The total unpaid water bills from the residents have reached a whopping US$8 million.[13]

The Mayor of the City of Kwekwe told Chitumba (2017) of the Chronicle Newspaper that the problem was attributed to a broken down pump as well as water restrictions from ZINWA because of an unpaid raw water bill of US$1.2 million.[14]

Water to Redcliff residents follow a long and winding process. According to the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (2015), such a water supply chain is not sustainable. The Municipality gets its water from the City of Kwekwe, which in turn buys raw water from ZINWA.  Initially, the water supply chain was even longer since the Municipality was buying its water from ZISCO Steel, after which ZISCO would have bought the same from the City of Kwekwe. At each stage of the water supply process, expenses were increasing resulting in residents in Redcliff buying it (water) more expensively as compared to residents of Kwekwe.

Furthermore, it would be a remiss of this research if it is not highlighted that some problems bedevilling local authorities are caused by senior civil servants who protect local authority staff no matter the nature or gravity of the problems at hand. A meeting with residents’ associations revealed that some local authority staff and politicians boast of protection from higher offices. It is alleged that when the petition attached hereto, was served one of the politicians was quoted saying that his supporters in higher offices will simply put it in the bin and he is not worried at all. Adding salt to injury, there were attempts to pour water on the petitioners and demonstrators[15]

 

2.3  Selling Water to Desperate Water Seekers

It is a reality that water was being sold to desperate residents. Among individuals selling water included senior public officials. Water was being sold under the guise of recouping electricity and other costs. The following spots were identified:

  • Residents were paying US$1 to get water at a borehole opposite the local authority’s administration office in Rutendo Township. It is alleged that the money was given to the Borehole Committee and it is meant for servicing the same;
  • Some individuals were selling clean water at a price of US$10 per 200 litre drum and dirty water for construction at a rate of US$5 per 200 litre drum;
  • It has been claimed that Rutendo Primary School was allegedly charging for electricity and not for water. Names of all individuals who pay are entered in a register and the access to water is strictly for all those who pay to the school.

 

There were other entities that were giving free water before being allegedly stopped by the local authority. The following is part of the list thereof;

  • The Rutendo Islamic Centre was forced to stop giving water to residents for free. A visit made on the 19th of April 2017 shows that the Centre had complied and stopped giving water to residents;
  • Nyaradzo Funeral Services in Redcliff was stopped;
  • Also forced to stop drilling boreholes for free was the said Mr. Matorino, who was drilling boreholes as part of efforts to pay back to the community that groomed him;
  • The Emirates Foundation allegedly drilled a borehole in Simbi Park close to the shops but the drilling was allegedly stopped;
  • It is also alleged that there was a certain politician known as Chinhara who drilled some boreholes during political campaigns as part of efforts to win hearts. It is said that when he lost, he surrendered the boreholes to the local authority but these boreholes were not maintained until they all broke down. However, some desperate residents repaired the boreholes on their own and using own resources;
  • Many individuals who did not want to be named in this report were stopped by the local authority though some of them continued giving free water since water cannot be denied to anyone as part of the Zimbabwean norms and values ‘ubuntu’.

 

2.4  Health Implications of the Water Crisis

The Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association (2017) in its Media Release of 18 April 2017, claims that on the 10th of December 2016, there was a typhoid outbreak in Redcliff resulting in more than 117 cases of typhoid reported. Desperate residents have been left with no option but to resort to unprotected water sources.

 

Many residents did not have water in their toilets and were using near-by bushes to relieve/ease themselves. A bush along the railway line close to Simbi Park is a clear testimony of this problem.  This is against concerted efforts by the Government of Zimbabwe dissuading open defecation.

 

In such cases, the local authority would be expected to bring water bowsers but the local authority has not done anything.

 

It is factual that the local authority and the company that put the sewer pipes in Rutendo in the Magamba area messed up. I am failing to understand why they put sewer pipes in such a manner that sewer doesn’t flow. If I become the Minister of Local Government today, I will demand an investigation and where possible demand that all those who were there then compensate the government from their own pockets. Maybe they paid bribes and did a shoddy job knowing very well that the inspectors cannot complain after receiving bribe money.

(Testimony from a resident of Magamba area in Rutendo, Simbi Park, Redcliff)

In many suburbs, raw sewer was seen flowing all over and residents in an area known as Magamba which is inhabited by war veterans is the most affected. A resident in the area did not have nice words for residents of the Magamba area as well as local authority engineers and a company that was given the tender to put sewer pipes. [16]

 

 

 

2.5  Attitude of the Local Authority

The majority of the residents interviewed pointed out that the local authority is not sensitive to the plight of the residents but is rather too rude. On the 19th of April 2017, representatives of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association complained that the conduct of one of the senior leaders was unacceptable. It is alleged that he almost mockingly poured water that he was drinking to the demonstrators.[17] Another complaint is that water was only supplied to areas where senior government officials reside.  The Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association (2017) in its Media Release of 18 April 2017, complain that “… leadership of the local authority boasts through claims that they are well connected to senior government officials to such an extent that all efforts made by residents will not bring any results. Indeed there is a feeling that there are some senior government officials and ministers who back the local authority regardless of pathetic service delivery, corruption and mal-administration”. In keeping thereof, a local authority should be people centered and it is sad that the residents are treated with the lack of respect yet the local authorities themselves are specifically created to serve these people.

3.     IMPLICATIONS OF THE REDCLIFF WATER CRISIS

Apart of being the leading cause of water-borne diseases such as cholera and typhoid to name but a few, the water crisis significantly affects development. The following are some of the implications of the problem if it is not curbed:

  • Typhoid and Cholera. In December 2017, 117 cases of typhoid were allegedly reported in the town due to contaminated water;
  • Use of alternative toilets: Toilets have no running water and residents are resorting to the use of bushes to ease themselves. The railway line passing through Simbi Park and Rutendo is an ‘eyesore’;
  • Scares away investors: What is undeniable is that no investor wants to invest in a town where there is no water;
  • Employers find it difficult to retain staff: An employee recently transferred to Redcliff refused the transfer because of water challenges in the town. On the other side, another police officer staying in Rutendo was contemplating approaching the employer seeking a transfer to another town where there is water;
  • Affects business: Many businesses operating in the town were finding it difficult to operate. A visit to a night club in one of the suburbs made startling findings of unflushed faeces in the toilet. This again could trigger a health disaster;
  • Trigger civil strife: The demonstration against the water crisis speaks volumes about an impending civil strife if the problem is not immediately addressed.
  • Reduces confidence in the leadership: Confidence in the leadership is at its lowest. This explains why the petition from the residents has called for the resignation of the entire leadership of the local authority.

4.     PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

It appears that the local authority is already on the hunt for investors to help in the setting up of a water treatment plant. [18] This would be the most sustainable solution, though it is hampered by resource constraints. A resident of Redcliff who chose to remain anonymous supported the idea and went further to say that the local authority could start by refurbishing the old infrastructure that was being used by ZISCO Steel to tap on water from Cactus dam.[19] However, he stated that the ZISCO water infrastructure had a very strong water pump, which was stolen. However, the majority of former employees of ZISCO confess to know who stole it and where it is.[20] Residents and ratepayers associations in Redcliff indicated that in the interim it was important for the City of Kwekwe to supply water directly and bill the residents. This solution was made based on the revelations that money paid by the residents was not being remitted to the City of Kwekwe by the Municipality of Redcliff.[21] On the other side, the local authority is making efforts to mobilize money to clear the water debt. Each household is being forced to pay between US$10 and US$20 per month in order the raise the money needed.[22]

5.     CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

What is undeniable is the fact that Redcliff water crisis speaks volumes about the lack of capacity within the rank and file of the local authority to come up with a permanent solution to the problem, such as setting up its own water treatment plant.[23] Relying on water supply from the City of Kwekwe is not only unsustainable but is expensive for the residents. The other perspective is to accept the reality that there is no shortage of water in Kwekwe where it is drawn from but that the Municipality of Redcliff has been disconnected by the City of Kwekwe for non-payment of water bills. This brings a plethora of legal issues that need answers. The following are some of the legal questions that need answers:

  • Are water disconnections legal in the context of the international law, new Constitution as well as new court precedents such as Mushoriwa v City of Harare HH 195/14 and Hove v City of Harare HH205/16 among others?
  • Is it legal for a local authority to disconnect water supply before following the due process of the law, in cases where the bills themselves are in dispute?
  • Is ZINWA allowed to disconnect water supply for non-payment of bills for raw water that it sells to the local authorities?
  • How relevant is ZINWA in the water supply chain in Zimbabwe?

 

In keeping with the above, it is high time that the Zimbabwean legal profession pronounces itself on the subject. In Redcliff, it is alleged that some innocent residents died as a result of water borne diseases and in December 2016 alone more than 117 cases of typhoid were reported.

As a way forward, one will be convinced to agree with the residents in their petition of 19 April 2017 that the leadership of the local authority has failed as the Honourable Mayor was quoted on the 19th of April 2017 admitting failure. Furthermore, in the public interest, an Interim Commission should be appointed to run the affairs of the town pending other permanent arrangements.

The following are some of the areas linked to water and sanitation that should be investigated or explored:

  • An all-stakeholder meeting involving the City of Kwekwe, Municipality of Redcliff. ZINWA, Resident associations, the private sector, the health sector and investors to name but a few, should be organised;
  • Transparency linked to the awarding of the tender to the company that is renovating the sewerage plant situated close to the residence quarters of employees of the Zimbabwe Republic Police;
  • Transparency linked to the awarding of the tender to a company that renovated Torwood toilets;
  • The rationale of the stop order facility through which local authority staff have agreed with the management to collect and pocket money for water bills at the detriment of undermining the local authority’s revenue collecting base;
  • The selling of water by different stakeholders, including local authority staff;

 


Annexes

1.     Residents Petition

PETITION TO THE HONOURABLE MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF REDCLIFF AS WELL AS THE SENIOR MANAGEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(19 April 2017)

We, the undersigned residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders residing in Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway, do hereby petition the Honourable Mayor, Councillors and the Management of the Municipality of Redcliff, (hereinafter referred to as the local authority), as well as the Senior Management of the Ministry of Local Government, calling upon them to urgently address the following issues:

  1. Water Crisis: Section 77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, recognize that every person has the right to safe, clean and potable water and to achieve this the State must take reasonable legislative and other measures to achieve the progressive realization of this right. However, in Redcliff, (excluding the areas where the Mayor and some senior local authority staff stay), we have gone for months without water. Lack of water makes our town unhygienic and may trigger an outburst of diseases. For instance on the 10th of December 2016, there was a typhoid outbreak in Redcliff resulting in more than 117 cases of typhoid reported. Adding misery and giving a gloomy picture towards a solution to the water crisis, on the 9th day of April 2017, the Honourable Mayor, confessed to all of us that he had failed to find a solution to the water crisis.
  2. Lack of Accountability of monies collected as levies: Previous petitions to the local authority demanding accountability of the US$10 special levy as well the education levy failed to elicit a positive response from the local authority. We want to know how much was collected as well as how much of it was spent and on what. We are demanding access to the information, which we know that we are all entitled to through reference to Section 63 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which says that “Every Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident, including juristic persons and the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by the State or by any institution or agency of government at every level, in so far as the information is required in the interests of public accountability”. In keeping thereof, we are demanding that you give us all the information, which we have requested. Transparency must be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information, which we do not see in the local authority
  3. Poor Service Delivery (referring to damaged and unrepaired roads, absence of public lighting, neglected garbage collection: We rate service delivery by the local authority as one of the poorest in the country. Roads facilitate the free movement of people, goods and services yet they are very poor. A total of 12 tower lights are all not working. Furthermore, the town is an ‘eyesore’ due to uncollected garbage. What surprises us most is the fact that you charge us for all these non-existent services. We are thus demanding that the local authority improves in these areas.
  4. Stop reprisals against the leadership of resident associations: We have noted with great concern that there are increased number of reprisals against the leadership of resident associations in Redcliff, which must be stopped immediately. Apart from the court actions, some of our leaders have also been victims of verbal attacks by the local authority which is totally unacceptable.

Our Recommendations:

In keeping with the above, we herby submit the following recommendations to the local authority as well as senior management in the Ministry of Local Government:

  1. Resignation of the Mayor, Councillors and Management of the local authority: What cannot be denied is the fact that the local authority has failed to run the local authority and manage the affairs of the people in Redcliff. Our situation is becoming worse by the day. This explains why we are asking the Mayor, Councillors and Management of the local authority to resign.
  2. Appointing a Commission to run the affairs of the local authority: It is our request to the Ministry of Local Government to appoint a Commission to run the local authority. This will not be the first in the country since other cities such as Gweru are being run by Commissions.
  3. Set up a Commission of Enquiry into the Management of Funds at the Municipality, corruption and other irregularities: Ignoring public calls to investigate the local authority is self-defeating and could be one of the reasons why the local authority is in its current messy. A Commission of Enquiry should be set up to investigate a number of issues that include but not limited to: adherence to good practices on financial management; accountability of levies (special and education levy), accountability of money received from the sale of stands, award of tenders (e.g. renovation of Torwood toilet;, servicing of stands etc);, use of stop order facilities and allowing local authority staff to collect and pocket money for water and utility bills; ,
  4. City of Kwekwe / ZINWA to take-over water management: The local authority has failed to address the water crisis, and we are thus asking the City of Kwekwe/ ZINWA to take over and start managing the water situation in the town.

We know that it is within our rights through Section 59 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013, to demonstrate and to present this petition, in a peaceful manner which we have demonstrated.

We, hereby sign this petition and asking the Mayor, Councillors and Management of the local authority as well as the senior management under the Ministry of Local Government to take appropriate action as prayed above.

 

 

2.     Media Release from the Residents Association

Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association

0716868831 / 0776185624/ 0775534543

______________________________________________________________________________

DEMONSTRATION AGAINST DEPLORABLE SERVICE DELIVERY, WATER CRISIS AND CORRUPTION IN REDCLIFF

(18 April 2017)

On the 19th of April 2017, residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders residing in Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway, will be demonstrating against the water crisis that has seen the suburbs going for at least 5 months without water in their houses. On the 10th of December 2016, there was a typhoid outbreak in Redcliff resulting in more than 117 cases of typhoid reported.  The demonstrators were provoked by the Honourable Mayor of Redcliff, who openly confessed on the 9th of April 2017 that he and his full Council as well as the Management of the Municipality of Redcliff had failed to resolve the water crisis. In other words, the Mayor was hopeless, which means that the water crisis was going to continue and another diseases is feared since residents have resorted to unprotected water sources. When a leader gives up the fight, this demoralizes the rest of his team and hence the call that he immediately resigns other than clinging to power and that the Ministry of Local Government sets up a Commission to run the affairs of the town.

On the 19th of April 2017, the demonstrators will meet at Dollar Shopping Centre as well as Mutegude Shopping Centre situated in Rutendo Township of Redcliff in Zimbabwe at 7:00 a.m, where they will peacefully march to the Civic Centre to present a petition signed by residents, ratepayers and other stakeholders in the town.

Apart from the water crisis, the residents decried the lack of accountability of monies collected as levies, poor service delivery; and increased  reprisals against the leadership of resident associations by the local authority. It is alleged that all those speaking out against deplorable service delivery, corruption and lack of accountability are often attacked and targeted by the local authority, which the petitioners said must be stopped.

The leadership of the local authority boasts through claims that they are well connected to senior government officials to such an extent that all efforts made by residents will not bring any results. Indeed there is a feeling that there are some senior government officials and ministers who back the local authority regardless of pathetic service delivery, corruption and mal-administration.

On the menu of recommendations made include:

  1. The resignation of the Mayor, Councillors and Management of the local authority;
  2. The appointment of a Commission to run the affairs of the local authority;
  3. The setting up of a Commission of Enquiry into the management of Funds at the Municipality, corruption and other irregularities: and
  4. Plea to the City of Kwekwe / ZINWA that they take-over water management of the small town:

For Media Enquiries Call:

0716868831 / 0776185624/ 0775534543 (Representatives of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association and Organisers of the Demonstration)

[1] Section 77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013

[2] Resolution 64/292: The human right to water and sanitation”. United Nations. August 2010. Retrieved 28 April 2017.

[3] The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966 implicitly recognises this right. Other treaties that explicitly recognize the right include the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The first resolutions about the HRWS were passed by the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council in 2010.

[4] Section 77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20) Act 2013

[5] Resident Video Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M. (19th April 2017).

[6] Ibid

[7] Refer to the Annex -1- being the Petition which was signed

[8] Resident. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M. (19th April 2017).

[9] Ibid

[10] Member of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association

. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (19th April 2017).

[11] Member of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association

. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (19th April 2017).

[12] ibid

[13] Chitumba, P (2017) Thirsty Redcliff residents demand Mayor’s resignation. [online] Available at http://www.chronicle.co.zw/thirsty-redcliff-residents-demand-mayors-resignation/ [Accessed on 24 April 2017]

[14] ibid

[15] Members of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association .  Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (19th April 2017).

[16] Resident of the Magamba area. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M. (19th April 2017).

[17] Members of the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association

. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (19th April 2017).

[18] Chikari, A (2017) Redcliff Town seeks water treatment plan investors. [online] Available at http://www.chronicle.co.zw/redcliff-town-seeks-water-treatment-plant-investors/ [Accessed on 24 April 2017]

[19] Resident. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (23rd of  April 2017).

[20] ibid

[21] Members of TORRA and the Rutendo, Simbi Park and Ridgeway Residents and Ratepayers Association. Interviewed by: Chinhamo, O. and Bidi, M (19th April 2017).

[22] Chikari, A (2017). Redcliff charges residents flat fee for water. [online]. Available at http://www.chronicle.co.zw/redcliff-charges-residents-flat-fee-for-water/ [Accessed on 24 April 2017]

[23] Chikari, A (2017) Redcliff Town seeks water treatment plan investors. [online] Available at http://www.chronicle.co.zw/redcliff-town-seeks-water-treatment-plant-investors/ [Accessed on 24 April 2017]

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MEDIA RELEASE: GEORGE CHARAMBA MUST STOP INTIMIDATING THE ZIMBABWE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

14 June 2016

MEDIA RELEASE: GEORGE CHARAMBA MUST STOP INTIMIDATING THE ZIMBABWE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION

The Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa) has noted with great concern Zimbabwean government attacks against the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC). Mr. George Charamba, who is doubling as the Press Secretary in the President’s Office as well as the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Information, is making headlines consistently attacking ZACC for carrying out its work as well as politicising the anti-corruption agenda. Considering the devastating impact of corruption on national development and how corruption may derail all efforts towards the ZimAsset Agenda, Mr. Charamba should have been motivating anti-corruption bodies instead of weakening them. The country needs corruption detesting leaders who ‘walk the talk’ against corruption. As long as there is no political will, the country will remain under the debilitating yoke of corruption. Mr. Alouis Munyaradzi Chaumba indicated that ZACC should be given an opportunity to execute its mandate free from interference and without fear or favour. “Let us all support ZACC and give it an opportunity to execute its mandate without fearing that George Charamba will attack it. Mr. Charamba should not intimidate the Commission from carrying out its constitutional mandate. We all now understand why the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe has not been interested in building the capacity of ZACC to execute its mandate in the most effective and efficient manner. It is clear that some individuals feel threatened by ZACC and wants to kill it again. They have done it before and wants to continue making the Commission weak. Kuvhunduka chati kwatara hunge uine katurike” He says.

 

In 2016, there has been an onslaught against the ZACC commissioners and managers over various allegations. Whilst, ZACC is urged to be exemplary, the recent attacks by the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe, represented by George Charamba, do not or at all help the country in moving forward with its anti-corruption agenda.

 

For more information kindly call Munyaradzi Chaumba (0773302830).

 

 

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa

Number 1

Corner Jacaranda Avenue & Fifth Avenue

  1. O. Box 93

Kwekwe

Zimbabwe

 

Tel: +263 (0) 55 25235

Mobile: +263(0)773302830

Mobile: +263(0)717152535

e-mail: actsouthernafrica@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Media Release: The Zimbabwe Republic Police told to Discontinue Spot Fines: A recent Study has Revealed

The Zimbabwe Republic Police told to Discontinue Spot Fines: A recent Study has Revealed

Kwekwe, Zimbabwe: A recent survey conducted by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa has revealed that motorists are forced by the Zimbabwe Republic Police to pay spot fines regardless of their innocence due to threats against them. It was revealed in the study that motorists pay spot fines to avoid having their drivers’ licences and permits seized, to avoid inconveniences and being delayed, to prevent their vehicles from being impounded, and to prevent their vehicles from being surrendered to Vehicle Inspectorate Department (VID). Furthermore, some motorists lost drivers’ licences and permits when they were confiscated by the police after they failed to pay the spot fines needed.

Apart from the practice of spot fines being illegal and unconstitutional, motorists insisted that spot fines fuel corruption because of various reasons such as:

  • The bribe money demanded by the police is often less than the gazetted traffic fines and motorists prefer paying bribes since that will be a huge saving on their part;
  • The salaries of police officers are very low and they demand bribes to supplement their salaries;
  • Motorists are time conscious and do not want to be inconvenienced and prefer paying bribes to drive hassle-free;
  • Refusal to pay often leads to vehicles being impounded and taken to VID for mechanical checks;
  • Motorists will not have the stipulated spot fines and therefore opt for a lesser amounts;

Mr. Obert Chinhamo, the Programmes Director of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa castigated the Zimbabwe Republic Police for being hypocritical in the fight against corruption. “What amazes me is that the police pretends to be fighting corruption and crime on one side and on the other side they are promoting a practice that fuels corruption and criminality. Spot fines fuel corruption and the link is very clear. Legal experts have also spoken and said that spot fines are illegal and unconstitutional. A constitutional body such as the Zimbabwe Republic Police therefore should move away from anything that is illegal and unconstitutional. The insistence on spots fines is unconstitutional and therefore should be discontinued” he says.

Motorists gave numerous recommendations. One key recommendation is that the ticketing system should be re-introduced. The re-introduction of the tickets will allow motorists to pay the fines within seven (7) days or face prosecution. Furthermore, motorists pointed out that police officers should not be allowed to receive cash at checkpoints but rather motorists should pay through the bank, Ecocash or at police stations. In addition, motorists recommended that spot fines should be discontinued considering that they are deemed to be not only illegal but they are unconstitutional.

 

Mr. Chaumba the Regional Coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa warned the Zimbabwe Republic Police that it is fact losing its credibility because of its insistence on spot fines and harbouring bribe thirsty police officers. Furthermore, he indicated that police checkpoints are being used as cash cows by traffic police officers. “Traffic police are the richest among other sections within the police. That is clear indication that they have extra income from somewhere. I do not know when last lifestyle audits were carried out but I insist these should be carried out as a matter of urgency. I strongly urge the management of the police to carry out these audits since some police officers have accumulated wealth which they cannot justify. Also insistence on a practice that illegal and unconstitutional tarnishes the image of the police. ” he says.

The survey report is available on request and has also been uploaded to the site. www.anticorruptiontrust.org

For more information, please contact

Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa), 1 Jacaranda Avenue, P. O. Box 93, Kwekwe, Zimbabwe, Tel: +263 (0) 55 25235, Mobile: +263 (0)77 33 02 830, (Chaumba) Mobile: +263 (0)78 449 0660 (Chinhamo), e-mail: actsouthernafrica@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Media Release: The Zimbabwe Republic Police told to Discontinue Spot Fines: A recent Study has Revealed

Kwekwe, Zimbabwe: A recent survey conducted by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa has revealed that motorists are forced by the Zimbabwe Republic Police to pay spot fines regardless of their innocence due to threats against them. It was revealed in the study that motorists pay spot fines to avoid having their drivers’ licences and permits seized, to avoid inconveniences and being delayed, to prevent their vehicles from being impounded, and to prevent their vehicles from being surrendered to Vehicle Inspectorate Department (VID). Furthermore, some motorists lost drivers’ licences and permits when they were confiscated by the police after they failed to pay the spot fines needed.
Apart from the practice of spot fines being illegal and unconstitutional, motorists insisted that spot fines fuel corruption because of various reasons such as:
• The bribe money demanded by the police is often less than the gazetted traffic fines and motorists prefer paying bribes since that will be a huge saving on their part;
• The salaries of police officers are very low and they demand bribes to supplement their salaries;
• Motorists are time conscious and do not want to be inconvenienced and prefer paying bribes to drive hassle-free;
• Refusal to pay often leads to vehicles being impounded and taken to VID for mechanical checks;
• Motorists will not have the stipulated spot fines and therefore opt for a lesser amounts;
Mr. Obert Chinhamo, the Programmes Director of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa castigated the Zimbabwe Republic Police for being hypocritical in the fight against corruption. “What amazes me is that the police pretends to be fighting corruption and crime on one side and on the other side they are promoting a practice that fuels corruption and criminality. Spot fines fuel corruption and the link is very clear. Legal experts have also spoken and said that spot fines are illegal and unconstitutional. A constitutional body such as the Zimbabwe Republic Police therefore should move away from anything that is illegal and unconstitutional. The insistence on spots fines is unconstitutional and therefore should be discontinued” he says.
Motorists gave numerous recommendations. One key recommendation is that the ticketing system should be re-introduced. The re-introduction of the tickets will allow motorists to pay the fines within seven (7) days or face prosecution. Furthermore, motorists pointed out that police officers should not be allowed to receive cash at checkpoints but rather motorists should pay through the bank, Ecocash or at police stations. In addition, motorists recommended that spot fines should be discontinued considering that they are deemed to be not only illegal but they are unconstitutional.

Mr. Chaumba the Regional Coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa warned the Zimbabwe Republic Police that it is fact losing its credibility because of its insistence on spot fines and harbouring bribe thirsty police officers. Furthermore, he indicated that police checkpoints are being used as cash cows by traffic police officers. “Traffic police are the richest among other sections within the police. That is clear indication that they have extra income from somewhere. I do not know when last lifestyle audits were carried out but I insist these should be carried out as a matter of urgency. I strongly urge the management of the police to carry out these audits since some police officers have accumulated wealth which they cannot justify. Also insistence on a practice that illegal and unconstitutional tarnishes the image of the police. ” he says.
The survey report is available on request and has also been uploaded to the site. http://www.anticorruptiontrust.org
For more information, please contact
Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa), 1 Jacaranda Avenue, P. O. Box 93, Kwekwe, Zimbabwe, Tel: +263 (0) 55 25235, Mobile: +263 (0)77 33 02 830, (Chaumba) Mobile: +263 (0)78 449 0660 (Chinhamo), e-mail: actsouthernafrica@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

ACT-Southern Africa urges Delta Corporation in Zimbabwe to be responsible in the Disposal of 1 Litre Super Chibuku Containers

In an move to persuade the Delta Corporation, which is a national brewer of the popular Super Chibuku opaque beer, the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa wrote to its General Manager on the 4th of January 2016 asking the Corporation to remove plastic empty containers that were an eyesore to the Zimbabwean environment. The letter signed by Mr. Obert Chinhamo of the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa was also copied to the police and local authorities. The letter reads that “….the plastic containers are posing a serious threat to the environment for the contemporary (current) and the future generations”. The organisation did not only highlight the problem but also made a number of recommendations such as setting up community-based recycling projects, giving the unemployed youths an opportunity to generate income for themselves through collecting the containers as well as launching a national cleaning campaign.  For more information or comments please contact Mr. Obert Chinhamo on Number 1 Jacaranda Steet, P.O.Box 93, Kwekwe, Tel: 055-25235, Mobile: 0784490660

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kwekwe Sets Up an Anti-Corruption and Service Delivery Monitoring Voluntary Action Group

Terms of Reference of the Anti-Corruption and Service Delivery Monitoring Voluntary Action Group

  1. Introduction

The Anti-Corruption and Service Delivery Monitoring Voluntary Action Group (ACSDM-VAG) is a group of twenty (20) community members set up by the Anti-Corruption Trust of Southern Africa (ACT-Southern Africa) to increase the likelihood of detection, reporting and punishment for corruption and poor service delivery and to increase options available to victims of corruption and poor service delivery.

Furthermore, the ACSDM-VAG contributes to improved public empowerment by involving citizens in enforcing anti-corruption measures and improving service delivery. The setting up of ACSDM-VAGs is a response to high levels of corruption and poor service delivery in both urban and rural areas in Zimbabwe.

The ACSDM-VAGs are set up under the Community Action against Corruption and Poor Service Delivery in Zimbabwe Project, which seeks to actively involve community members in the fight against corruption and poor service delivery.

  1. Project Scope

The activities of the Kwekwe ACSDM-VAG cover the Kwekwe district which includes Redcliff, Kwekwe, Silobela and Zhombe.

  1. Activities of the ACSDM-VAG

The ACSDM-VAG acts as a watchdog against corruption and poor service delivery and works closely with other stakeholders in preventing and combating corruption and improving service delivery in a number of sectors that include health, and education among others. Apart from whistle blowing functions, public education and reporting corruption, the ACSDM-VAG also monitors and reports on service delivery.

The KACSG-VAG is responsible for:

-Whistleblowing:

Disclosing or reporting of wrongdoing, including but not limited to corruption; criminal offences; breaches of legal obligation; miscarriages of justice; specific dangers to public health, safety or the environment; abuse of authority; unauthorised use of public funds or property; gross waste or mismanagement; conflict of interest; and acts to cover up of any of these.

– Public Education:

Members of the CACSDM-VAG are responsible for raising awareness against corruption, maladministration and poor service delivery within their communities. Members are empowered to carry out this function in the most effective and efficient manner.

– Reporting Corruption:

Acts of corruption and their prosecution are documented and reported to the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), the Zimbabwe Republic Police and other competent authorities.

The CACSDM-VAG will be given training on how to gather evidence and where possible equipped with adequate tools for gathering evidence.

– Research:

The CACSDM-VAG carries out research on corruption and service delivery matters and use the findings thereof for advocacy purposes

– Desisting from Corruption:

Members of the CACSDM-VAG are themselves be encouraged to refrain from corruption and this is one of their key activities. Members conscientise each other against corruption and report corruption whenever and wherever it occurs.

– Monitoring Service Delivery and Maladministration:

Members of the CACSDM-VAG monitor and report on service delivery in the health, water, and education sectors among others. Reports on service delivery are used to facilitate evidence informed decisions and the for advocacy purposes.

-Monitoring action taken on reported corruption and poor service delivery cases:

The CACSDM-VAG closely monitors action taken by authorities on reported cases. Where no action is taken the CACSDM-VAG resorts to other options that include but not limited to litigation and civil disobedience.

– Advocacy:

Based on evidence collected the CACSDM-VAG carries a number of advocacy activities aimed at the reduction of corruption and improved service delivery.

-Management of the ACSDM-VAG

The ACSDM-VAG carries out its work through a Committee that comprises of a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, Vice Secretary, Organising Secretary, Vice Organising Secretary, Coordinator Public Education, Vice Coordinator Public Education, Coordinator- Service Delivery and Vice Coordinator- Service Delivery and Committee members. All reports are presented to the ACSDM-VAG for endorsed before any action is taken. The ACSDM-VAG gets advice from the ACT-Southern Africa and a legal team that was set up to advise it as well as to give legal advice to victims of corruption and poor service delivery.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment