*** The views expressed in the articles published on this website DO NOT necessarily express the views of the Commercial Farmers' Union. ***
Zuma accused of ‘allowing’ destruction of human rights court
By Alex Bell
4 March 2013
South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma has been accused of ‘allowing’ the
destruction of the regional human rights Tribunal, by “selfishly” standing
by while it was shut down.
The former Chief Justice of the SADC Tribunal, Judge Ariranga Pillay, told a
seminar in South Africa last week that Zuma, as the leader of SADC’s largest
and most powerful state, could have done more to stop the destruction of the
Pillay described how Zuma and other SADC leaders were responsible for
hobbling the court on Robert Mugabe’s behalf, because of that Tribunal’s
landmark ruling against Mugabe’s land grab campaign.
The court was wholly suspended in 2010 by SADC leaders, in the aftermath of
its ruling that the land grab was unlawful. The Tribunal had also held
Zimbabwe in contempt of court for refusing to honour its original ruling in
2008. The court also held the Government of Zimbabwe in breach of the SADC
Treaty and other international legal obligations.
But instead of taking action against Zimbabwe, SADC leaders suspended the
court for a review of its mandate. More than two years later the court
remains inactive. Regional justice ministers have proposed that the court
only be reinstated with a very limited human rights mandate, which blocks
individual access to the court.
Pillay said at the seminar last week that it was ‘ironic’ that Mugabe had
been one of the SADC leaders who had originally established the Tribunal to
ensure the adherence of member states to the SADC Treaty. Pillay explained
that this included Article 4 of the Treaty, which obliges SADC leaders “to
act in accordance with human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.
It was this article which the Tribunal invoked when it ruled against the
Ben Freeth, who, together with his father-in-law Mike Campbell, led the
landmark case before the Tribunal in 2008, told SW Radio Africa that Pillay’s
indictment of Zuma was “strong and correct.”
“If South Africa had spoken out and if South Africa had moved to prevent
this, then I have no doubt that other SADC leaders would have followed,”
Mugabe meanwhile has stated that Zimbabwe will never abide by rulings in
South African courts that move to uphold the original Tribunal ruling.
Mugabe told the state media last week that Zimbabwe “would not be bound” by
the decisions of South African courts.
He was reacting to developments in the South African Constitutional Court,
which has reserved judgement on a challenge by farmers who lost land in
Zimbabwe. The farmers had turned to the South African courts for help,
because Zimbabwe has refused to honour the SADC Tribunal ruling.
The South African High Court in Pretoria in 2010 upheld the ruling by the
Tribunal and ordered the attachment of properties owned by the Zimbabwean
government in Cape Town to compensate the white commercial farmers.
Zimbabwe appealed this decision and tried to block this ruling but the
application was denied in the High Court and also in Supreme Court of
Appeal, with the latter dismissing Harare’s application with costs.
Zimbabwe then took the matter to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the
Supreme Court decision was in violation of international law. Zimbabwe
lawyers have argued that a sovereign country should not be subjected to the
processes that they are being subjected to by their neighbour and that “a
diplomat is inviolable as much as diplomatic property in a foreign land.”
The Court last week reserved judgement on the matter, but the farmers have
expressed confidence that the ruling will be in their favour.
Mugabe on the other hand has dismissed the legal attempts stating: “In South
Africa they have certain elements outside the ANC and cannot be controlled
by the ANC and these are elements that once upon a time were here and were
unseated by us and have realised that in South Africa you can go to court
and get judgements. But let them have those judgments, we will simply ignore
them. South African courts have no jurisdiction over us so we will simply