The bill is seen by the opposition as an unconstitutional move by the ruling Zanu-PF party to further suppress the opposition ahead of elections next year.

The penalties for advocating sanctions would be up to five years in jail or a large fine, or both, according to the government-controlled Sunday Mail newspaper this past weekend. Penalties could also include losing citizenship, permanent residence and the right to vote or hold public office for up to 15 years.

The government originally intended to put the measures in a separate Patriotic Act, but now appears to have decided instead to add them to the wider Criminal Law act through an amendment. This was approved by the Cabinet on 22 November and would be gazetted soon, according to the Sunday Mail.

Death sentences

It said the bill also provides for death sentences for Zimbabweans who conspire with foreign powers to invade Zimbabwe or overthrow the constitutional order.

Zimbabwean human rights lawyer and senator David Coltart said it was clear the bill — which he called “one of the worst pieces of legislation since 1980” — was intended to snuff out remaining opposition to the government.

Coltart , a leading member of the main opposition party, the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) — a successor to the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) — emphasised that he had not yet seen the exact text of the bill because it had not yet been published.

But from reports in the government-controlled press, it appeared to have been drafted so broadly that it went way beyond punishing someone for encouraging a foreign government to invade Zimbabwe, for example — it also included measures to criminalise lobbying for sanctions.

Coltart said one could see how a human rights activist who travelled abroad and merely criticised the government could then be subjected to criminal prosecution before a biased judiciary.

If the provisions of the bill have been accurately reported, they would breach the constitutionally enshrined rights to freedom of expression, of the media, of opinion and freedom to form and operate political parties.

Coltart said he had no doubt the bill had been introduced “by a government which is increasingly paranoid, increasingly determined to snuff out whatever dissent there is in the country. 

“It will have a chilling effect on opposition parties, on NGOs and on human rights activists generally, speaking out against corruption, the destruction of the judiciary and speaking out against violence and other human rights abuses.”

EU rebuked

Coltart also rebuked the European Union for its recent complimentary remarks about the Zimbabwean government, which he said was giving Zanu-PF a licence to introduce legislation like the anti-sanctions bill.

He was referring to statements by EU ambassador to Zimbabwe, Jobst von Kirchmann, at a ceremony last week when he and finance and economic development minister Mthuli Ncube signed agreements for the EU to grant the Zimbabwean government €41-million for healthcare and six million towards the holding of next year’s elections. 

Kirchmann was quoted in the government-controlled Harare Herald as saying that “peaceful elections will be one of the key elements that allow Zimbabwe to create a prosperous environment to make the national development strategy a reality”.

Kirchmann was also quoted as saying the “constructive re-engagement” of President Emmerson Mnangagwa with the international community “creates a very nice climate of going hand-in-hand going forward”.

“I am positive about the way we can dialogue… I was impressed by the openness and transparency and the discussions which we had with the government. I think that is the way to go.”

As an example of such discussions, Kirchmann offered those between the government and the EU special representative for human rights, Eamon Gilmore, on his recent visit to Zimbabwe. According to the Herald, at least, Kirchmann said, “Zimbabwe gave a good account of itself” in its discussions with Gilmore, a former Irish deputy prime minister, and that such a high-level visit would have knock-on effects. 

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

In his weekly column in the Sunday Mail, President Mnangagwa responded by welcoming “the remarkable diplomatic warmth now between us and the European Union”. He cited the two new grants as well as EU financial support for the government’s own priorities under its National Development Strategy 1. 

Mnangagwa said this was the first time the EU had disbursed aid directly to the Zimbabwean government rather than through NGOs.  The CCC believes Mnangagwa’s international re-engagement and promises of reform are just a ploy to mask continuing repression of the political opposition. 

“The EU needs to understand that issuing statements like this gives licence to this regime, which deals with the EU and other countries in a very cynical manner,” Coltart said, adding that he found Kirchmann’s remark that Zimbabwe had given a good account of itself to Gilmore, particularly concerning. 

‘Profoundly shocking’

“They take this as a signal that all that they’ve done to crush the opposition, to distort and destroy the legal system, is in order. And I have absolutely no doubt that they so brazenly moved in Cabinet last week on the criminal code because they literally feel that the EU has endorsed their conduct. It is profoundly shocking.”

It was even more shocking because of the Zanu-PF regime’s open support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Coltart said. 

“And here we have the EU seeking to curry favour with this regime. It is a very dangerous policy which could even lead to the loss of lives in Zimbabwe, if this regime believes it has been given complete, blanket licence to do as it chooses in the run-up to the election next year.” 

Zimbabwean political analyst Ibbo Mandaza, executive chairperson of the regional SAPES think tank, said the proposed bill to criminalise those who lobbied against sanctions “is patently unpatriotic in import; the protagonists of the bill are being unpatriotic in the extreme. The bill is unconstitutional; it runs in the face of the Bill of Rights in particular and the letter and spirit of Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution”.

Sanctions

The EU introduced targeted financial and travel sanctions against then Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, members of his inner circle and Zanu-PF-linked companies in 2002, citing human rights abuses, including repression of the political opposition. Brussels also imposed an arms embargo against Zimbabwe.

But the sanctions have been steadily diminished since then, and now only comprise the arms embargo and individual sanctions against one company, the state-owned Zimbabwe Defence Industries, which makes ammunition. 

From 2001, the US introduced wider sanctions including a veto of IMF and World Bank financial support to Zimbabwe and targeted freezing of financial assets and a ban on travel to the US for many Zimbabwean individuals. 

The UK and some other Western countries have also maintained limited sanctions against key Zanu-PF individuals. 

Mnangagwa’s government blames much of the economic ill-health of Zimbabwe on the sanctions and has managed to mobilise the Southern African Development Community, in particular, to campaign against them.

The Western governments imposing the sanctions insist that the largely targeted sanctions have very little if any impact on the general economy, and that it is Zanu-PF’s mishandling of economic affairs which is to blame for the country’s dire economic state. DM