Chiefs last week resolved to set up a mechanism to resolve
the long-standing grievances by people in Matabeleland and the Midlands
provinces emanating from the atrocities blamed on the North Korean-trained
Fifth Brigade.
This followed concerns that President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s
government was not doing enough to help survivors find closure, a year after
former president Robert Mugabe was toppled.
However, the proposal has been criticised by some chiefs
from Matabeleland who feel the president of the Chiefs’ Council, Fortune
Charambira, is trying to hijack their own local initiatives to force the Zanu
PF government to tackle problems that arose because of the massacres known as
Gukurahundi.
Charumbira (FC) told Standard senior reporter Obey Manayiti
(OM) in an exclusive interview that traditional leaders had been under pressure
to act on Gukurahundi for a long time and they felt Mugabe’s removal made it possible
for them to intervene.
He denied that he was trying to cleanse Zanu PF leaders
accused of being ringleaders in the massacres. Below are excerpts from the
interview.
OM: The resolution by the Chiefs’ Council to set up a
taskforce to tackle the Gukurahundi atrocities has sparked debate with some
critics saying you are trying to cleanse Zanu PF as some of its leaders were
the architects of the massacres. What is your comment on that?
FC: There was no taskforce that was set up at the
conference, no. That is false and it has to be corrected in the minds of anyone
who has believed that.
At the conference, there was simply a motion moved by the
chiefs to the effect that with the coming of the second republic, traditional
leaders must now assert themselves to effectively play their various roles that
they have played since time immemorial, which have expanded with time, of
course.
Chiefs were saying we want our space and we perform
judicial functions, but there are certain bottlenecks and there were issues
that were raised in that respect.
Chiefs have a mandate to ensure peace and orderliness in
our communities. It’s our inherent role, we are in the second republic and we
want to move forward.
If there are areas that chiefs have lacked in the past, please
let’s work together to correct that.
The issue of Gukurahundi is a response to calls by society
at large and people may not know the pressure under, which the traditional
leaders have been subjected to from political parties of all persuasions over
the past years, various segments of society — social and economic — saying why
are chiefs not asserting themselves, especially with issues of divisions and
conflicts, including Gukurahundi.
We waited for a long time deliberately until the conditions
were conducive.
We felt that this is the right time because we are in the
second republic, the president having declared himself as a fair person, wants
everyone to effectively play their role.
This was not driven by any political party. I see
insinuations that maybe Zanu PF is involved, but it is not true.
This is coming from the institution itself and this is a
mammoth task that we can only undertake in consultation with various
stakeholders.
To all those that are making noise, we are saying we will
take on board every genuine stakeholder, be they political parties, NGOs or
churches.
This initiative is not being driven by any political party,
but over the years all the parties, even MDC in its various formations,
especially after the 2008 election, was asking why we were not taking action
and we said maybe the time was not ripe.
We are not excluding anyone including the NGOs that are
making noise.
They just need to appreciate the fact that chiefs are
taking the lead.
OM: What are the objectives of the taskforce and will the
findings be binding, considering that the taskforce does not derive its mandate
from the constitution?
FC: Unfortunately that is not true. I said our role is
inherent.
When churches go to mediate as they have been doing, is it
in the constitution? When the NGOs go out to try and assist in conflict
resolution, is it in the constitution? Churches have been doing some work on
conflict resolution even on the Gukurahundi issue.
If you see people fighting in the street and you restrain
them, do you need to refer to the constitution? Conflict is bad, full stop. It
is a societal issue, a moral issue, an ethical issue and we cannot leave people
remaining in conflict perpetually.
You don’t even need a law to quell a conflict, even if you
are in a foreign land, if you see people fighting you still go and stop the
fight, you don’t need a law to do that. but for the chiefs it is even stronger
and in the constitution, one of our roles is conflict resolution.
However, whether constitution or not, this is our inherent
role since time immemorial.
However, I need to emphasise that there was no taskforce
formed; we don’t need a taskforce for this.
Our approach is different, we have the conference of
chiefs, we have the chiefs’ council, we have the provincial assembly of chiefs
and then the chiefs themselves.
There is no taskforce that is going to resolve the
Gukurahundi, but each chief is going to do it in his or her area.
There are no external people that will go to a particular
area to talk about Gukurahundi.
The chief and his people, including those that are making
noise, even those outside Matabeleland, will be part of these meetings to give
their own ideas too.
Charumbira will not go to Matabeleland to resolve any
dispute; we are simply setting up a framework to activate the institution to
start performing its roles.
OM: What makes you think that you are better placed to
bring closure to the Gukurahundi atrocities yet you have been part of the
government that has done nothing to address the issue since the end of the
killings in 1987?
FC: Have there been any major initiatives to resolve this
issue? The Chihambakwe Commission simply conducted an investigation and did a
report.
It was not there to resolve issues, so are you aware of any
initiative on this?
People kept on saying because of that absence of a major
initiative, some people still feel aggrieved and despite the Unity Accord which
was a big step in fostering unity at the higher level, there are people at the
lower levels who believe that maybe the Unity Accord did not go to the furthest
extent possible.
OM: Will the taskforce not be duplicating the work being
done by the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC), a
constitutional body?
FC: In fact, at our conference the NPRC were in attendance.
So we are working with them, but their being there doesn’t mean that chiefs
must not do their duty of peace-making.
We see them as an extra body that should assist the chiefs.
As chiefs, we cannot go and sleep because there is this
thing, [NPRC], which has a tenure of 10 years. The permanent institution is
that of chiefs, but our roles complement each other. They are not in conflict
at all and that is why at our conference we agreed on how to set up this thing
together.
OM: Some chiefs are accusing you of having a tribal agenda
in your Gukurahundi interventions. What is your reaction to that?
FC: It is not true. At the conference all the chiefs were
there and this thing was done democratically.
The support was unanimous and we don’t know about these
fictitious chiefs that you are referring to and if they are really there, they
must have come out.
The proposal and the secondment came from chiefs in the
provinces, including Matabeleland so we don’t know these fictitious chiefs you
are referring to. All the genuine chiefs were there and they supported it.
OM: If your taskforce establishes that action needs to be
taken against Gukurahundi perpetrators who might happen to be your leaders in
Zanu PF, would you take up the process?
FC: Our interest at the end of it all is to ensure that we
resolve these issues in a sustainable manner, permanently.
There will be no issue too big to handle for the
institution, but as you know, as traditional leaders we have over centuries
resolved conflicts and we rely on our methods. I can assure you on that. We
will create a win-win situation and no one should be a loser in this process.
OM: Western election observer missions that watched over
the July 30 elections noted that bias by traditional leaders was the biggest
threat to credible polls. What is your reaction to those findings and are you
motivated to depoliticise chiefs?
FC: You know what, the problem is that those observers came
up with historical perceptions of politics in Zimbabwe.
It is true that in 2000 when we embarked on the land reform
programme, chiefs were very active because we wanted to make sure that land was
taken [for redistribution].
I agree that between 2000 and 2005 yes [chiefs meddled],
but after 2013, chiefs made noise about this political party or that party. But
our issues have been resolved.
In 2018, if you observed well, the chiefs never came out as
they used to do in the past in supporting whichever party although we know that
there are some chiefs who even support MDC.
The problem with this is that it only assumed that chiefs
support Zanu PF, but there are some who support MDC, it’s a fact.
If you read the reports of the observer missions, they are
shallow. The people that they asked do not represent the situation on the
ground and we took them to task over this. About 99% of the allegations about
chiefs are incorrect.
OM: What is your reaction to observations by the same
groups that partisan distribution of food by traditional leaders swayed the
election in favour of Zanu PF?
FC: You have a duty as the media to educate Zimbabweans.
People in Zimbabwe have been so polarised that each group
believes in their own lies. What food is being distributed and what food was
distributed over the past five years?
Many distributors are NGOs and they identify their
implementing partners.
Where do you find traditional leaders in their systems of
distribution? This is what you should do. You must challenge them to produce
their distribution framework and the truth will come out.
Chiefs are not the ones who nominate anyone to get food.
This is total misrepresentation and I am challenging the
media in this country, if they want on their own or jointly with us, to go out
and check on how the food is distributed.
The image of our institution is tarnished unfairly over
these things, yet we do not identify any beneficiary.
The other category of food distribution comes from the
government through the social welfare department and that once again is
prescribed because it has age limits and also targets orphans.
It is done by the social welfare department itself and the
chiefs are not involved even though we want to be involved because this is like
the Zunde Ramambo.
In the absence of NGOs, we have granaries and when people
come to chiefs we supply them with food from our granaries.
OM: You were sanctioned by the courts for dabbling in
partisan politics. Have you ever considered being non-partisan?
FC: By Election Resource Centre? Did they win the case? As
far as I know, I was never sanctioned.
In a court of law you have to produce facts, this is not
just about writing an article. I was never sanctioned.
OM: There was an order….
FC: No, there was no order. What happened is that they went
to court when I was outside the country and the days elapsed to defend myself.
The matter was all over the press claiming that I was sanctioned, but I came
and challenged it.
OM: Lastly, things are increasingly getting difficult in
the country, there is no fuel and prices of basic commodities are on the rise.
The cost of living has risen and people are saying this might be a failure of
leadership and many are proposing for dialogue between Mnangagwa and Nelson
Chamisa.
What are your views?
FC: Of course, that question is too political and I will
never want to be involved lest I be accused of meddling in politics.
However, all we know is that it is true (rising cost of
living) and about five weeks ago there was serious depreciation and disparity
between the value of the US$ and the bond notes. That has created hardships, of
course, but we need to resolve these things.
We need to create an environment conducive for resolution
of conflicts and our economy should start performing.
Elections are held in the belief that they will bring peace
and harmony in the country so that there is a clearly recognised leadership.
It is unfortunate that even after elections people continue
to dispute what came out and that is not good for this country.
If there is space for political parties to be able to work
harmoniously, then that is good because we all need peace in this country.
The more we fight, the more we scare possible economic
friends and then suffering is perpetuated.
Harmony is what we are looking for as chiefs and we are
prepared to assist the political parties if the situation allows. Standard
0 comments:
Post a Comment