Academic literature on the topic 'Criminal law – Zimbabwe'

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the shortfalls of the legal definition of corruption in Zimbabwe. Design/methodology/approach Defining corruption is a universal challenge. Thus, in reviewing Zimbabwes definition, this paper also draws on other common law system jurisdictions based on English traditions and Sharia law to make a comparative analysis. The paper also takes a multi-disciplinary approach that transcend fields of law and anthropology. Findings Although criminal law can be used as the normative basis in the fight against corruption, it can also be used by the powerful to shield themselves from corruption, through its indeterminacy and interpretation. Be this as it may, real and firm law can assist in curbing the vice. Research limitations/implications The paper’s purview is limited both in terms of subject and scope. Although it starts by considering the definition of corruption to get a broad overview of this subject, it mainly focuses on the meaning of two popular concepts that are popularly identified with our understanding of corruption – abuse of power and public office. Originality/value The paper tries to establish a framework for understanding and curbing corruption through the use of statutory law.

Our aim was to compare socio-demographic, clinical and criminal characteristics of mentally disordered offender patients in a special institution in a developing and a developed country. Zimbabwe data from 1980-1990 was obtained from a hospital patient survey, in a written semi-structured format. The English special (high security) hospital patients' data for the same period was obtained from the case register. The sample size for Zimbabwe was 367 patients (337 males, 30 females) and for England and Wales it was 1,966 patients (1,643 males, 323 females). The average age for Zimbabwean patients was 36 years, with standard deviation of 9.7; for England and Wales the average age was 29.7 with standard deviation of 9.6. There was significant difference in marital status in the two countries. Seventy-eight per cent of patients were single in England and Wales, compared with 49% in Zimbabwe. There were 20% illiterate patients in Zimbabwe, compared with 4% in England and Wales. Thirty-seven per cent of the patients in England and Wales had a diagnosis of personality disorder, compared with 6% in Zimbabwe. There were 53% of homicides in Zimbabwe, compared with 20% in England and Wales. Employment in the two countries was similar: 34% in Zimbabwe and 33% in England and Wales. There were differences in the socio-demographic characteristics in the two countries, except for employment status. Differences were also noticed in the diagnoses of the patients, types of crime and the methods of assault.

The legality of judicial corporal punishment is an issue which has caused considerable disagreement amongst jurists, legislators and criminal justice personnel, for its use has serious moral, constitutional and penological implications. In Zimbabwe, two decisions handed down by the Supreme Court together with a later constitutional amendment Act have highlighted the divergence of views on this matter. It is thus the intention of this article to examine critically the issue from a constitutional and penological perspective.In 1987 in S v. Ncube a full bench of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe unanimously held that the sentence of whipping for adults contravened section 15(1) of the Declaration of Rights which is contained in the Constitution of Zimbabwe in that it constituted a punishment which in its very nature was both inhuman and degrading. In his seminal judgment, Gubbay, J. A., had regard to four factors, namely: (i) the current trend of thinking amongst distinguished jurists and leading academics; (ii) the abolition of whipping in many countries of the world as being repugnant to the consciences of civilized men; (iii) the progressive move of the courts in countries in which whipping is not susceptible to constitutional attack to restrict its imposition to instances where a serious, cruel, brutal and humiliating crime has been perpetrated; (iv) the decreasing recourse to the penalty of whipping in Zimbabwe, especially over the previous ten years and the declining number of laws on the statute book in which it remained a permissible penalty.

AbstractAn eventual sustained democratic transition process in Zimbabwe may include a ‘truth and reconciliation’ commission. The need for—and possible form of—any such institution is situated in a number of discussions: the balance of principle and pragmatism that peace deals sometimes require; comparative experiences in other societies and the promise and limits of institutional modelling; the dynamic between global expectations or prescriptions and ground-level exigencies; the interface of international criminal law and institutions with national-level justice processes; the content of the State's international legal duty to afford a remedy. In considering the extent of an international normative framework limiting the justice options of transitional States, a certain margin of appreciation may be appropriate or necessary to enable a society to reconcile with its violent past on its own terms.

On 27 November 2013 the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa affirmed the decision of the High Court that South Africa’s Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 2002 (icc Act) empowered South African officials to initiate investigations into crimes against humanity committed in Zimbabwe in the absence of the perpetrators in South Africa. This decision was in response to the true interpretation of section 4(3)(c) of the icc Act providing for universal jurisdiction. This paper examines the judgment of this Court, arguing that though customary international law is silent on the requirement for presence of the perpetrators for initiation of investigation, the Court should have given proper examination of this section by taking into consideration of the previous presence of some of the perpetrators in South Africa after the alleged crimes were committed.

Africa’s relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been strained over the past few years. Threats by a number of African states to withdraw from the ICC’s jurisdiction have marked a crescendo in the strained relationship. This study looks at the issues surrounding the proposed or threatened mass withdrawal by African countries and the implications for peace and justice in the African continent. Utilising interviews with a cross section of key informants including members of the African diplomatic community resident in Zimbabwe, this study highlights that it is difficult for African states to withdraw en masse since not all states are agreeable to this stance. The study further highlights that although the ICC is not a perfect institution, it is the only alternative court of last resort that can deal with human rights and international humanitarian law violations as well as impunity in the continent. The proposed African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) has not yet taken root owing to a shortage of adequate ratifications of the protocol establishing it. Thus, although concerns of unfair targeting of African leaders and individuals by the ICC could be considered valid, African states need to find a way of establishing a cordial relationship with the ICC to ensure the protection of individual rights while they establish regional institutions to deal with cases currently being referred to the ICC.

In June 2015 the High Court granted an interim order prohibiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir from leaving South Africa. Although Al-Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and South Africa is a signatory to the Rome Statute and has passed the Implementation Act, the government failed to arrest him as required by an order of court. Short-term political considerations appear to have outweighed the need to respect the rule of law. Parallels can be drawn between this incident and the decision by the executive to refuse access to the Khampepe Report when requested to do so by the Mail and Guardian newspaper. The report was prepared at the request of former President Mbeki by two senior South African judges, after a visit to Zimbabwe shortly before the election held in that country in 2002. In an attempt to prevent disclosure, the executive approached various courts on six different occasions and drew out the process for more than six years. The main issue in this case is the use of section 80 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act by the courts, a discretionary power that is applied sparingly. In terms of PAIA, the state is prevented from making reference to the content of a record in order to support a claim of exemption. In such instances, section 80 provides courts with the power to inspect the record – a procedure known as a ‘judicial peek’ – in order to make a determination as to whether the exemption is justified. This case provides a clear example of how the state cynically used this provision as a dilatory tactic in refusing access to the report. The current system that relies solely on the courts to handle access to information matters undermines the main objectives of the Act and is inefficient and costly. It is recommended that PAIA be amended to provide for an information commissioner with powers to mediate and make binding decisions.

Purpose This study aims to analyse the effects of the Presidential Powers (Temporal Measures), amendment to the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act to include legal practitioners under the list of designated non-financial business and professions. Design/methodology/approach The study is a textual analysis of anti-money laundering legislation [anti-money laundering (AML) legislation] within the context of legal practice in Zimbabwe. Findings The amendment put Zimbabwe on the international standard in the fight against money laundering, as legal practitioners have become a soft target for money laundering. Despite its noble aim, in Zimbabwe there is anecdotal evidence that the AML legislation turns lawyers into watchdogs or law enforcement agents. On the contrary, the amendment prevents lawyers from falling to the mercy of organised criminals and money launderers. Furthermore, there is a dearth of empirical research that can demystify the impact of some of the provisions of this law on contested issues, such as legal professional privilege. Research limitations/implications This study aims to outline the rationale for anti-money laundering policy and law. This study will analyse how the issue has been approached in other jurisdictions such as England and Wales. The paper will then try to establish coherent principles in the prevention of money laundering. This study will also suggest a number of recommendations as to how Zimbabwe could approach some of the issues while still considering the need to balance competing influences of legal privilege and money laundering regulations. Practical implications The paper will bring this issue to the fore and initiate an informed debate, as well as provide practical talking points for legal practitioners to embrace the AML regime and to engage policymakers on the issues that need reform. Originality/value This paper provides the first in depth analysis of the money laundering legislation in the legal fraternity in Zimbabwe and goes to offer practical tips and entry points on the application of the regulations or for advocacy towards any reform as might be needed.

British cases used to be widely relied upon to show that courts were entitled to hear criminal proceedings against defendants brought before them without having to enquire into the process by which custody over them had been obtained: and specifically, that there was no bar to proceeding where the allegation was made that custody had been obtained in breach of international law.1 The consistency of the doctrine was breached by Mackeson2 when the English court refused to hear the case against a defendant who, it accepted, had been brought to England by a collusive process between the English and Zimbabwean authorities, which arguably breached both national laws, even if it did not involve a breach of international law. While the previous orthodoxy soon reasserted itself in Driver,3 the edifice of authority was substantially undermined in Bennett4 when the House of Lords acceded to the claim of the applicant that proceedings against him would be an abuse of process, given the circumstances in which his presence in the United Kingdom had been achieved. Outside the United Kingdom, the practice in other States continued in different directions, sometimes confirming the old position of male captus, bene detentus,5 sometimes the reverse.6

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015
ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Universal jurisdiction is a relatively new concept in South Africa and a rather controversial concept in international criminal law. It is often discussed but rarely applied. Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a State to punish certain crimes irrespective of where they were committed. Such crimes need not be connected to the State in question via the more traditional links of territory, nationality or direct State interest. These crimes are typically the worst crimes in international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The argument goes that those who commit these types of offences become hostis humani generis, or the enemies of all mankind. Therefore just like the pirate of old any nation that captures them is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over them, on behalf of all mankind. But at the same time a feature and founding principle of international law is the sovereign equality of States. And under international law criminal jurisdiction is a prerogative of sovereign States. States have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed within their territory, for having control over a territory is essentially what it means to be sovereign. This means that one nation’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over persons that also fall under the jurisdiction of another nation could be perceived as the undermining of the second nation’s sovereignty. It is submitted that a proper understanding of universal jurisdiction internationally, and in South Africa, is vital because the Constitutional Court recently ordered South African authorities to investigate torture committed by Zimbabwean officials against Zimbabwean citizens that was allegedly committed in Zimbabwe. In other words the court ordered South African authorities to exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwean officials. This thesis has as goal to critically examine the claims made, and authorities, cited in support of universal jurisdiction, as it is believed that these are usually theoretical and unpractical in nature. It is submitted that balance and a measure of realism is imperative to this debate. Contrary to popular opinion, it is submitted, that the history of international relations has not favored universal jurisdiction and there is no indication that this situation has fundamentally changed or will change in the near future. The thesis continues to examine, after a consideration of the likening of pirates to modern international criminals, the claim that old authorities such as Grotius and De Vattel provide support for universal jurisdiction. An analysis follows of the so-called ‘Lotus principle’, which is said to mean that any State may exercise jurisdiction over serious offences because there is no rule prohibiting it. The trials of German war criminals by the Allies, in the aftermath of WWII, is also said to have evidenced universal jurisdiction and this claim is critically examined. The same applies to the trial of Adolf Eichmann by Israel. The examination of provision for universal jurisdiction in international law continues when the jurisdictional provisions of the Genocide, War Crimes and Torture Conventions are examined and specifically applied to South Africa. The drafting process of these Conventions is carefully studied to understand the intention and circumstances prevalent at the time. In the process specific countries and international case law dealing with these Conventions is also considered. The jurisdictional triggers of the International Criminal Court are surveyed and it is questioned whether it provides for universal jurisdiction and whether it can then be said to support member States in exercising universal jurisdiction on its behalf. The research findings on universal jurisdiction and the ICC are finally applied to South Africa especially with reference to the Constitutional Court decision on the torture committed in Zimbabwe before conclusions are drawn as to what South Africa’s international and domestic duties entail.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Universele jurisdiksie is ‘n relatief nuwe konsep in Suid-Afrika en ‘n redelik kontroversiële konsep in internasionale strafreg. Dit word gereeld bespreek maar weinig toegepas. Universele jurisdiksie verwys na die bevoegdheid van ‘n Staat om sekere misdrywe te straf ongeag waar dit gepleeg is. Die betrokke Staat hoef nie enige van die traditionele verbindings soos territorialiteit, nationaliteit of direkte Staats-belang met sodanige misdrywe te hê nie. Hierdie misdade is tipies van die ergste misdade in internasionale reg, soos volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en misdade teen die mensdom. Die argument is dat diegene wat hierdie tipe misdrywe pleeg hostis humanis generis, of vyande van die mensdom word. Daarom, net soos die seerower van ouds, is enige nasie, wat hulle in hegtenis neem geregtig om sy jurisdiksie, namens die ganse mensdom, oor hulle uit te oefen. Maar terselfde tyd is 'n kenmerk en grondbeginsel van internasionale reg die soewereine gelykheid van State. En onder internasionale reg is strafregtelike jurisdiksie 'n prerogatief van soewereine State. State het territoriale jurisdiksie oor misdade wat binne hul regsgebied gepleeg is, want om beheer oor 'n gebied uit te oefen is in wese wat soewerein wees behels. Dus kan een Staat se poging om jurisdiksie uit te oefen oor persone wat ook onder die jurisdiksie van 'n ander Staat val beskou word as die ondergrawing van die tweede Staat se soewereiniteit. Dit word aan die hand gedoen dat 'n behoorlike begrip van universele jurisdiksie, beide internasionaal, en in Suid-Afrika van uiterse belang is, veral omdat die Konstitionele Hof onlangs Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede beveel het dat marteling gepleeg in Zimbabwe, deur Zimbabwiese amptenare, teen Zimbabwiese burgers ondersoek moet word. Die hof het dus beveel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede universele jurisdiksie moet uitoefen oor Zimbabwiese amptenare. Hierdie tesis het ten doel om die gesag gewoonlik genoem, ter ondersteuning van universele jurisdiksie, krities te beskou, veral omdat dit gewoonlik teoreties en onprakties van aard blyk te wees. Hierdie tesis poog om ‘n noodsaaklike balans en mate van realisme tot die debat te voeg. Anders as wat algemeen aanvaar word ondersteun die geskiedenis van internasionale betrekkinge nie universele jurisdiksie nie en is daar ook geen aanduiding dat hierdie situasie onlangs fundamenteel verander het, of in die nabye toekoms sal verander nie. Die tesis beskou voorts, na 'n oorweging van die vergelyking van seerowers met moderne internasionale misdadigers, die bewering dat die ou skrywers soos De Groot en De Vattel hul steun verleen aan universele jurisdiksie. Hierna volg ‘n ontleding van die sogenaamde "Lotus beginsel", wat glo beteken dat enige Staat jurisdiksie mag uitoefen oor ernstige oortredings, bloot omdat daar geen reël is wat dit verbied nie. Die verhore van Duitse oorlogs misdadigers deur die Geallieerdes, na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, word ook dikwels as bewys gebruik van universele jurisdiksie en word ook krities bekyk. Dieselfde geld vir die verhoor van Adolf Eichmann deur Israel. Die voorsiening gemaak vir universele jurisdiksie word verder ondersoek deur te let op die jurisdiksionele bepalings in die Konvensies oor volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en marteling en dit word telkens op Suid-Afrika van toepassing gemaak. Daar word veral noukeurig gelet op die opstel proses van hierdie Konvensies ten einde te bepaal presies wat die bedoeling en heersende omstandighede toe was. In die proses word spesifieke lande en internasionale gesag wat met die Konvensies te make het oorweeg. Die Internasionale Strafhof, en of dit voorsiening vir universele jurisdiksie maak, word ondersoek ten einde te bepaal of dit enigsins gesê kan word dat die Hof lidstate aanmoedig om universele jurisdiksie te beoefen. Laastens word die bevindings oor universele jurisdiksie en die Internasionale Strafhof toegepas op Suid-Afrika, veral met verwysing na die Konstitusionele Hof beslissing oor die marteling in Zimbabwe, voordat gevolgtrekkings gemaak word oor wat presies Suid-Afrika se internasionale en plaaslike pligte behels.

LLM
Department pf Public Law
Capital punishment has been widely applied by countries since time immemorial. The concept, however, is highly controversial. That is, on the one hand, the anti-abolitionist states argue that it is an effective form of punishment, on the other side; the abolitionist states contend that it is an unjustifiable infringement of people’s fundamental right to life. There have been calls, both regionally and globally, for a moratorium on the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was promulgated as a move towards the abolition of the death penalty in all countries and states in the world. Article 1 (2) of the instrument states that, “Each state party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction”. At regional level, Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that all human beings are inviolable and entitled to the respect and integrity of their person. As such, no one may be deprived arbitrarily of this right. In addition, Article 1 of the Protocol to the African Charter provides that the death penalty shall not be applied by state parties in their territories or any person within their jurisdiction. Despite the current global and regional trends towards the abolition of the death penalty and its inherent controversy, Zimbabwe remains anti-abolitionist, and entrenched the death penalty in section 48 (2) of its 2013 Constitution. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology, the study critically analyses section 48 (2) (d) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution, and examines how it affects key fundamental rights as well as the way forward in the light of the international human rights standards on the death penalty.
NRF

PhD (African Studies)
Centre for African Studies
This interdisciplinary study examined witchcraft beliefs and criminal responsibility in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The unshakeable deep rooted and profound cultural beliefs of African people do not find expression in written law and therefore introduce a mismatch between law as the people live it and law as contained in the statute books. The aim of this interpretive doctrinal (legal) and qualitative research study was two-fold. Firstly, it sought to evaluate and assess the influence of African value systems particularly ethical ideas on the development of criminal responsibility. Secondly, it undertook a comparative examination of the criminal responsibility of actors who commit crimes while labouring under belief in witchcraft. The research, therefore, undertook a comparative examination of the criminal responsibility of actors who commit crimes while labouring under the overpowering fear of belief in witchcraft. In that regard, the study was premised on and informed through theories of criminal punishment, a Human Rights Based Approach, psycho-analytic theory and socio-cultural theory. The primary motivation for the study was the need to address the mismatch of laws and African value systems and to add knowledge to the scholarly legal writing on beliefs in witchcraft. Explorative qualitative research methods of collecting data (case studies, semi-structured interviews and focus groups discussions) and the doctrinal methods of data collection (case law observation, newspaper reports and witchcraft legislations) were employed as the research methodologies for the purposes of this study. For social empirical findings to be useful in integrating with the legal issues, the study adopted an Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) perspective. Although customary practices play a very important role in the lives of the African people, some of the rules can no longer withstand constitutional scrutiny. The research findings confirmed the mismatch that exists between the African value systems and the law. The study unveiled that the African value systems of the two countries have been affected by modernity. Also, the two countries have similar laws governing the aspect of belief in witchcraft that are weak and archaic thus introducing a lacuna in the