At 10am this morning, 26 November 2010, Justice Garwe, the Supreme Court judge of appeals, handed down a ruling on the 2008 challenge taken by WOZA leaders, Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu. The verbal ruling granted that the two women had been wrongfully arrested and detained and, as a result, had their rights and fundamental freedoms violated. Justice Garwe also ruled that the state had failed to protect the activists from this abuse. The application for a repealing of section 37 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act was dismissed and reason will be made available.

Williams and Mahlangu were arrested on 16 October 2008 at the Mhlahlandlela Government Complex after a peaceful protest to demand that all Zimbabweans be provided with access to humanitarian aid. At that time there was widespread starvation and no food on the shelves and government had banned humanitarian aid. They were arrested and detained in Bulawayo Central Police Station and taken to court two days later charged under C/S 37 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act Chapter 9:23: “Acting together with one or more other persons with him/her in any place realizing that there is a real risk or possibility of disturbing peace, security or order of the public”.

They were denied bail and sent first to Grey Street Prison and then to Mlondolozi Prison where they were held for three weeks. A successful High Court appeal granted them their freedom although initially restricting them to a 40km radius of their homes.

Williams and Mahlangu eagerly wait to have sight of the written ruling and to be able to prepare for a legal suit against the police for wrongful arrest and for damages.

The 20 WOZA members held for three days by police were finally released an hour ago after paying $30,000 bail each. They have been remanded to 4th April. The group of 17 women and 3 men were charged under Chapter 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act – ‘participating in a public gathering with the intent to cause public disorder, breach of peace or bigotry’.

It turns out that the group was held for an extra day because police had filed for extension of detention citing their broken equipment.

The group included two women with babies – one woman was allowed to return home every evening and report back to Central Police Station every morning. The second woman was not actually arrested with her child so police allowed the baby to be brought to its mother every day and then return home at night whilst the mother remained in custody.

Three people who were beaten in custody are receiving medical treatment following their release but the extent of their injuries is not known.

WOZA would like to salute the brave people of Gweru, Masvingo and Mutare who took to the streets in defiance of a nation-wide ban on demonstrations, rallies and public meetings. These peaceful street protests were the first of their kind for WOZA members in these centers and we commend their commitment and courage in face of severe police intimidation.

WOZA would also like to commend the Zimbabwe Republic Police in Mutare for recognizing that the People’s Charter will bring a better tomorrow for ALL Zimbabweans, themselves included. To police in Gweru and Masvingo, who beat the peaceful protestors and who felt so threatened by love that they had to back themselves up with water cannons, WOZA would like to remind them that they are our brothers and sisters and while they may think that serving oppression will allow them to survive today, the only way that we can all live a dignified and prosperous life tomorrow and every day after, is when the rights of ALL Zimbabweans are respected and protected.
Woza Moya!

The 83 members arrested in Harare on 20th September again appeared in Harare Magistrate’s Court in a remand hearing this morning. The 76 women and seven men were arrested after a peaceful demonstration calling for community safety on International Peace Day and spent two nights in custody in Harare Central Police Station before being released on free bail. The activists were further remanded out of custody to 1st December 2010.

Their defence lawyer put the state on notice that she would be applying for a refusal of further remand at the next remand hearing. 

The group has been charged under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 46, as read with Section 2(v) of the Third Schedule to the Criminal Code – ‘criminal nuisance’.

10pm

Gweru
The nine members arrested whilst taking food to those in custody on Monday appeared in court late this morning. They were released on bail and were remanded to 23rd March. All of those arrested in Gweru following the launch of the People’s Charter on Monday have now been released.

Masvingo
The 20 arrested yesterday in Masvingo are spending another night in custody. It is still unclear what charges are being brought against them.

Mutare
Still no arrests have been reported following the launch of the People’s Charter in Mutare this morning.

The WOZA social justice charter – the People’s Charter – was successfully launched in Mutare this morning, as members of the organisation marched through central Mutare, defying a police ban on all demonstrations throughout the country. Approximately 30 women processed, singing and waving placards, from near Kingdom Bank up to the Civic Centre, a distance of about 300 metres. They left their placards in front of the Civic Centre, and dispersed, as the few police in the area ignored them. No arrests took place.

Meanwhile we have news that the total number arrested yesterday in Masvingo is 20. A lawyer is now assisting them. Details of the charges are not yet available.

In Gweru, the 27 arrested during the demonstration on Monday appeared in court yesterday and were released on bail. The nine others that had been arrested later in the day when taking food to those in cells remain in custody and are expected to be taken to court today. Police are still trying to decide what charges to bring against them.

AT noon today, 600 members of Women and Men of Zimbabwe marched to Parliament in Harare to mark International Peace Day. 25 members were arrested at Parliament (most of them handing themselves in) and taken to Harare Central Police Station. 58 more handed themselves in in solidarity with their arrested comrades after marching from Parliament to Harare Central. Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights have confirmed that the total arrested is 83, both women and men. They will spend the night in custody even though police officers are still not sure what charges to prefer or if they even have a case against the activists as most handed themselves in.

The aim of the peaceful protest was to highlight community safety issues and police behavior in communities. When the peaceful group arrived at Parliament, they handed over a list of demands for members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the Police Commissioner and the co-Ministers of Home Affairs to police officers stationed outside Parliament. The full list of demands can also be found below.

Two members addressed the peaceful group outside Parliament explaining that tomorrow (21st September) is International Peace Day and using the example of the violence at COPAC consultations over the weekend to illustrate how Zimbabweans have little experience of peace. They called on the Zimbabwe Republic Police to allow Zimbabweans to be able to give their views of what they want in a new Constitution without violence and called on police to arrest those that threatened others or used violence.

Bystanders were overheard supporting the protestors – commenting on the violence shown by police officers in recent weeks and how police officers should be ashamed of themselves for not being the ones to keep the peace.

WOZA members have been worried about the performance and professionalism of our police officers for some time. As a result, WOZA has observed their behavior in select communities in Bulawayo and Harare for four months.

WOZA members observed police officers beating suspects in public; harassing vendors and taking their goods for their own use, without any receipting; demanding and accepting bribes, both in public and at police stations; drinking in uniform in public, sometimes stopping to drink while escorting suspects who will be under arrest and making people under arrest ‘run’ in front of their motor bikes and/or horses to the police station. In Bulawayo, many police officers refuse to respond to citizens’ complaints if they speak in the Ndebele language, insisting they speak in Shona.

75% of people whose rights were violated during arrest reported damages, injuries and or loss of property. These incidents are common when one is arrested by the plain-clothed and municipal police.

A more detailed account of our findings can be found in the Woza Moya newsletter below. The investigations done during the four months is just a small part of what is happening and are a reflection of a poor relationship between police and the community. It is clear that police officers routinely violate human rights and do not follow proper protocols of arrest and detention. In this regard, they are not following the Zimbabwe Police Act, the ZRP Service Charter and ZRP Service Standards as well as regional and international standards and instruments.

These arrests come after many constitutional consultations in Harare over the weekend were marred by violence from ZANU PF youth. It is unclear how many, if any, of these violent youths have been arrested and yet 83 peace activists, asking police to work together with them to promote community safety, are the ones that have been arrested.

WOZA is currently suing the co-Ministers of Home Affairs over the filthy and inhumane conditions in Harare Central Police Station. By all accounts, conditions have not improved and are still soiled with human waste.

Please phone Harare Central Police Station on +263 4 777777 to demand that the WOZA activists be released immediately.

For the full list of demands and more information on WOZA’s observations of police behaviour in Harare and Bulawayo over the last four months, click here: Woza Moya Sep-10

For more information on the ZRP Service Charter, Service Standards or the SARPCCO Harare Protocol Code of Conduct, click on the following links: ZRP Service Charter, ZRP Service Standards, SARPCCO Hre Protocol-Code of Conduct

61 of the 65 members, including juveniles, arrested outside ZESA headquarters in Harare earlier today have been released without charge. Four members, Jenni Williams, Magodonga Mahlangu, Clara Manjengwa and Celina Madukani, remain in custody and will spend the night in cells. They are being charged with participating in an illegal gathering.

Please continue to call Harare Central Police Station on (+263 4) 777777 or (+263 4) 736931 or (+263 4) 725803 or (+263 4) 733033 or (+263 4) 721212 to demand that the WOZA activists be taken to court tomorrow and that they not be mistreated in custody.

Watch footage from the demonstration here: clip-21

Leaders of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA/MOZA) today met with the co-Ministers of Home Affairs, Kembo Mohadi and Giles Mutsekwa. The meeting was requested through the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP). The human rights defenders were accompanied by Dzimbabwe Chimbga from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR).

The two hour meeting was attended by the Permanent Secretary of Home Affairs, Mr. Melusi Machiya and three other unnamed officials. Surprisingly, Registrar General, Tobaiwa Mudede was also in attendance.

The ministers advised that they had called the meeting after receiving numerous reports from law enforcement agencies regarding the activities of WOZA. Minister Mutsekwa opened by advising that the motive of the meeting was to “bring WOZA and the ZRP to equal terms, restore harmony and to remove discord and suspicion”. The minister went on to mention that the power sharing government is negatively regarded locally and internationally as an oppressive government as a result of WOZA’s negative publications and that this is affecting their ability to attract investors.

Minister Mohadi admitted that the police had been accused of being partisan in the past which had led to the sharing of the Home Affairs ministry. He stressed that Zimbabweans should obey their laws fully or if they do not like the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), which is on their statute books, they should lobby parliament for amendments. He went on to say that when the ministers had come into office they had announced to Zimbabweans that the time for squabbles is over and that they should desist from any activities that could jeopardise the inclusive government and that WOZA should have taken their cue from that. He also insisted that WOZA should put their trust the police as they are supposed to keep order. .

With that introduction, they asked the WOZA delegation to respond. National Coordinator, Jenni Williams related that at first WOZA had notified police of their intention to hold peaceful demonstrations. Police interpreted ‘notify’ as ‘apply’ and that had lead to police trying to refuse our right to assembly. At one stage they had threatened that they would shoot to kill if members went into the streets. Williams also mentioned that police do not comply with POSA regulations as regards how to disperse a gathering, be it lawful or unlawful, but use excessive force. Williams also advised that WOZA does not need to notify police as it falls under POSA exemption schedules as a non-political organization. In this regard, WOZA has successfully defended its right to assembly in seven trials.

At this point a legal argument began which continued for over 30 minutes with the ministry interpreting the exceptions to suit their demand that WOZA must notify before their demonstrations. Despite clarity that a ‘gathering’ included a procession or a demonstration, and therefore exemptions applied, the ministers were adamant that exemptions do not apply to a demonstration. This matter remained unresolved and Minister Mutsekwa insisted that the legal matter be argued between the Attorney General and Mr. Chimbga.

In closing the meeting, Minister Mutsekwa lectured on the “need for peace and tranquillity in the country and we have to correct the wrong impression that we are a lawless country.” “We ask you to start to obey the country’s laws so that investors start coming in and we can all benefit. There is a bigger picture than your issues. We are going to call a press conference about our meeting with you.”

With those comments they then declared that if WOZA notify police before any demonstrations, both ministers would not be found wanting in personally disciplining any police excesses. Implicit in this statement is the threat that if WOZA continues to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly and their exemption under the Public Order and Security Act, they will continue to allow the police to ignore clear instructions for dispersing a procession covered under law.

WOZA’s legal opinion remains as follows: the Public Order and Security Act currently provides the law for the maintenance of public order and security in Zimbabwe. Under Section 2 of the Act, a public gathering is defined as a “public meeting or a public demonstration”. Sections 23, 24 and 25 outline the procedure to be followed by a convener who intends to organize public demonstrations as defined under the Act. At the end of the Act appears a schedule of gatherings to which sections 23, 24, 25. Of particular relevance to this situation is paragraph (i) of the schedule which excludes “any club, association or organization which is not of a political nature and at which the discussions and matters dealt with are not of a political nature’ from having to give any notification.

WOZA therefore clearly falls within the provisions of section (i) of the schedule and is not obliged to give notice whenever it has its peaceful processions on issues which are non-political in nature.

WOZA values the opportunity to directly engage with the co-ministers and acknowledges the time they spent discussing with us. We will continue to stand firm on our right to enjoy fully our freedom of expression and assembly without hindrance. And in so doing, know that we are obeying the letter of the constitutional provisions and the unfortunate Public Order and Security Act. Peaceful protest is not the only means by which WOZA members choose to engage with their leaders about issues that affect them in their daily lives. In a country where democratic space remains limited, however, we the ordinary people of Zimbabwe will continue to grab any space possible to get our voices heard.

AT noon today 700 members of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise marched through central Harare to the offices of the state-owned Herald newspaper, handing out Valentine cards, red roses and abbreviated copies of WOZA’s report on the state of democracy in Zimbabwe. No arrests have been reported at the time of this release.

In typical WOZA fashion, six protests started separately and converged on the offices of the Herald. The peaceful groups sang as they marched, handing out roses and Valentine cards to excited Saturday shoppers who rushed forward to accept the gifts. At the Herald offices, the peaceful protestors chanted slogans for a few minutes before leaving a copy of the report, a Valentine rose and a WOZA scarf at the door before dispersing without incident.

The report, entitled ‘Hearts starve as well as bodies – give us bread but give us roses too! Democratising Zimbabwe – an opportunity to shine!‘ is a snapshot of community activists’ views on the state of democracy in Zimbabwe one year after the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU). It also urges Zimbabweans to participate in democratizing Zimbabwe.

The Valentine cards handed out by the marchers read: “It is not enough that bread has returned to our shelves. Our hearts are also starving for a people-driven constitution. We demand a living constitution that will give us bread and roses too! Just like the thorns on a rose, love comes with pain, we must be willing to fight through the pain to get our new constitution. Demand your Rose – stand up for love. Shine Zimbabwe Shine!”

Songs sung by the peaceful protestors included: “We want our constitution; we want our rose“, “love is needed in Zimbabwe urgently“, “it is difficult to live in a country where thorns are in our way, we need to kneel and pray” and “if your heart is troubled, trust in the Lord (John 14:1).”

The peaceful protest today was a test of civic and media freedoms under the GNU at a time when the Public Order and Security Act (POSA) is being publicly debated in Zimbabwe.

A full copy of the report can be found at the following link: Hearts starve as well as bodies: a WOZA perspective on the state of democracy in Zimbabwe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                                        CASE NO. HC

HELD AT BULAWAYO                                                                            EX REF: HC 37/10

EX REF: S.C53/09

EX REF CRB 2857-8/08

In the matter between:

JENNIFER WILLIAMS 1^ST APPLICANT

and

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU 2^ND APPLICANT

and

THE STATE RESPONDENT

I the undersigned Jennifer Williams do hereby make oath and state as follows.

1. I am the Applicant herein and my address of service is c/o my legal practitioners of record.

1. The 2^nd Applicant is Magodonga Mahlangu of the same address of service.

1. The Respondent is the state as represented by the Attorney – General’s office whose address of service is 3^rd Floor, Tredgold Building Fort Street, L. Takawira Ave, Bulawayo.

1. The brief history of this matter is as follows

The 2^nd Applicant and I have been appearing in the magistrate’s court facing a charge of contravening section 37 (i) (a) (1) of the criminal law (Codification and Reform) Act – participating in conduct likely to promote public violence, breaches of peace or bigotry in that on the 16^th of October 2009 we together with others allegedly gathered at Mhlahlandlela Government complex singing and chanting slogans realizing there was a real risk or possibility of forcibly disturbing the peace, security and order of the public.

1. We then made an application in the magistrates court for referral of the matter to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the aforesaid section of the Criminal Law Code violates sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Such application was dismissed by the court a quo.

1. We then made a direct application to the Supreme Court in terms of section 24 (1) of the constitution where we were alleging that the refusal by the magistrate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court violated section 18 (1) of the constitution by denying us the right to approach the Supreme Court as enshrined in section 24 (2) of the constitution.

1. Such application was filed in the Supreme Court on the 10^th of March 2009. The matter was argued in the Supreme Court on the 4^th of June 2009 and The Honourable Chief Justice Chidyausiku undertook to hand down judgement on the application by the 7^th of July 2009 which was going to be our next remand date in the magistrates court.

1. As at the 7^th of July 2009 no judgement had been handed down by the Supreme Court. We continued appearing several times on remand in the magistrate court and the State through the Chief Law Officer Mrs Cheda kept saying we should be given long remands with the hope that on the next remand date the Supreme Court would have made its ruling on our application. All that was to no avail as the Supreme Court has not even up to now made its ruling. Repeated efforts to pursue the ruling through the Supreme Court registrar proved futile as she kept advising that the Supreme Court is yet to make its ruling.

1. The Registrar upon enquiry from us, had to write a letter marked Annexure A which confirmed that indeed the Supreme Court was still seized with the matter and trial in the magistrates court could not proceed. That was after the State had insisted on proceeding to trial despite the fact that the Supreme Court had not made its ruling on the application.

1. On our appearance in court on the 1^st of December 2009 our legal practitioners of record then made an application for refusal of further remand on the grounds that there was no need for us to be continuously remanded since the trial, as more fully appears in Annexure A, could not take off until the Supreme Court had made its ruling on our application. As such considering that the Supreme Court up to that time had not made its ruling on the matter and there was no indication as to when such ruling would be handed down it would be extremely prejudicial and more so needless for us to keep coming to court indefinitely while we await the Supreme Court ruling which would be handed down on some unknown date.

1. Moreover we argued that the state was not going to lose anything by our removal from remand as we could be summoned for trial should our application fail in the Supreme Court.

1. The State prosecutor opposed the application arguing inter-alia that he had been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutors that the Supreme Court had advised that the ruling would be delivered by end of December 2009.

1. The Court a quo delivered its ruling on our application for refusal of further remand on the 21^st of December 2009 a copy of which is hereto attached marked Annexure B. The magistrate in dismissing the Application ruled that we are the ones who caused the delay in the finalization of this matter by filing the Constitutional application in the Supreme Court and secondly that at any rate according to the State the Supreme Court was likely to deliver its ruling by end of December 2009.

1. With the greatest respect the court a quo erred in its ruling. It appeared to accuse us of causing the delay of the trial by approaching the Supreme Court. It did not seem to take cognizance of the fact that approaching the Supreme Court on a constitutional issue is a right enshrined at law and protected by section 24(1) and (2) of the Constitution. We were within our rights to approach the Supreme Court and cannot be penalized for that. The court a quo’s decision in condemning us for approaching the Supreme Court was a serious and grave misdirection on its part with the result that the eventual decision premised on that ground was grossly unreasonable and irregular.

1. Aggrieved by the court a quo’s ruling we then filed an application for review whereby we were challenging its decision as being anter-alia grossly unreasonable and irregular. The application was filed under cover of case no. H.C 37/10 which proceedings I beg leave to incorporate herein by reference.

1. The said application is as such pending before this Honourable Court and since it has only recently been filed determination on it is definitely not going to be any time soon.

1. We were remanded by the court a quo to the 24^th of February 2010. It is fairly obvious that by then the aforesaid application for review would not have been disposed of and as such it would mean we would have to be remanded to some other date. On that next date it might be the same story as it is common cause that court matters take fairly long to be heard. Since it is fairly obvious that by the 24^th of February 2010 the review application would not have been disposed of it therefore becomes necessary to have proceeded by way of an urgent chamber application as opposed to an ordinary court application. If we had launched this application as an ordinary one chances are extremely high that by the 24^th of February 2010 it would not even have been allocated a hearing date. This would therefore render the relief sought academic since we would have to continue on remand until the application is heard at a later date in future.

1. This would occasion immense prejudice to us as we would have to continue on the remand system indefinitely until our review application is determined by this court.

1. Our free movement is curtailed as we would have to be continuously appearing in court without any indication as to when our matter would ever be finalized.

1. Worse still as at this point the Supreme Court still has not delivered its ruling on our constitutional application despite the State’s assurances in the court a quo that such ruling would be delivered by end of December 2009. We are as such back to the same scenario where we not only have to wait indefinitely for the Supreme Court to deliver its ruling on our constitutional application but also where we have to wait for this court indefinitely to adjudicate on our review application.

1. We are as such faced with a unenviable situation whereby we might have to wait for a very long time before any determination and ruling is ever made on either applications. Worse still we are apprehensive the Respondent might insist on commencing our trial despite the pending applications as it has attempted to do so previously.

1. The state I must reiterate suffers no prejudice if we are to be removed from remand since it can always, and I must say has the capacity to summon us for trial should our constitutional application be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Conversely we suffer the extreme prejudice and inconvenience of having to be continuously appearing in the magistrates court on remand for an indefinite period.

We thus seek an order removing us from remand pending determination on our application for review and restraining the Respondent from initiating our prosecution.

Wherefore I pray for an order in terms of the attached Draft.

SWORN TO AND SIGNED AT BULAWAYO THIS DAY OF JANUARY 2010

……………………………………….

JENNIFER WILLIAMS

………………………………………

COMMISIONER OF OATHS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                              CASE NO. HC

HELD AT BULAWAYO                                                                   EX REF: HC 37/10

EX REF: S.C53/09

EX REF CRB 2857-8/08

In the matter between:

JENNIFER WILLIAMS 1^ST APPLICANT

and

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU 2^ND APPLICANT

and

THE STATE RESPONDENT

I the undersigned Magodonga Mahlangu do hereby make oath and state as follows.

1. I am the 2^ndApplicant herein and my address of service is c/o my legal practitioners of record.

1. The other parties are as cited in the Founding Affidavit.

1. I have read and understood the 1^st Applicant’s Founding Affidavit and I confirm the contents therefore and identify myself with the same.

Wherefore I also pray for an order in terms of the attached Draft.

SWORN TO AND SIGNED AT BULAWAYO THIS DAY OF JANUARY 2010

……………………………………….

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU

………………………………………

COMMISIONER OF OATHS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                               CASE NO. HC

HELD AT BULAWAYO                                                                   EX REF: HC 37/10

EX REF: S.C53/09

EX REF CRB 2857-8/08

In the matter between:

JENNIFER WILLIAMS 1^ST APPLICANT

and

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU 2^ND APPLICANT

and

THE STATE RESPONDENT

I, JOB SIBANDA a Legal Practitioner of this Honourable Court practicing under Messrs Job Sibanda and Associates do hereby certify that I have read the Applicant’s Founding Affidavit and confirm that the matter is urgent for the following reasons:

1) The Applicants filed a review application in this Honourable Court wherein they were challenging the Court a quo’s decision dismissing their application for refusal of further remand.

2) They are due to appear for further remand in the magistrates court on the 24^th of February 2010.

3) The review application has only recently been filed on the 10^th of January 2010 and it is common cause that by the time of their next appearance in the magistrates court the review application would not have been disposed of let alone even set down.

4) This would then mean they mean would have to be further remanded to some other date and thereby their continuance on remand is perpetuated rendering the filing of the review application of academic relevance.

5) It is thus essential that this matter be dealt with urgently as going by way of an ordinary court application would mean that by their next remand date the application would not have been heard

6) There is also a reasonable apprehension that the Respondent might insist on proceeding with the trial despite the fact that there is a pending constitutional application in the Supreme Court. as it has attempted to do so previously.

In the premises I certify that this matter warrants the urgent attention of this Honourable Court.

DATED AT BULAWAYO ON THIS DAY OF JANUARY 2010

…………………………………….

LEGAL PRACTITIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                               CASE NO. HC

HELD AT BULAWAYO                                                                   EX REF: HC 37/10

EX REF: S.C53/09

EX REF CRB 2857-8/08

In the matter between:

JENNIFER WILLIAMS 1^ST APPLICANT

and

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU 2^ND APPLICANT

and

THE STATE RESPONDENT ______________________________________________________________________

TAKE NOTICE THAT on the day of 2010 the Honourable Mr Justice sitting at the High Court in BULAWAYO issued a provisional order as shown overleaf.

The annexed, affidavits and documents were used in support of the application of this provisional order.

If you intend to oppose the confirmation of this provisional order, you will have to file a Notice of Opposition in Form No. 29B, together with one or more opposing affidavits, with the Registrar of the High Court at BULAWAYO within ten days after the date on which this provisional order and annextures were served upon you.

You will also have to serve a copy of the Notice of Opposition and affidavit (s) on the Applicant at the address for service specified in the application.

If you do not file an opposing affidavit within the period specified above, this matter will be set down for hearing in the High Court at Bulawayo without further notice to you and will be dealt with as an unopposed application for confirmation of the Provisional Order.

If you wish to have the Provisional Order changed or set aside sooner than the Rules of Court normally allowed and can show good cause for this, you should approach the Applicant or Applicant’s Legal Practitioners to agree in consultation with the Registrar, on a suitable hearing date.

If this cannot be agreed or there is great urgency, you may make a chamber application on Notice to the Applicant for directions from a Judge as to when the matter can be argued.

TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT

1. That the Respondent be and is hereby interdicted from summoning, causing or attempting to cause the Applicants to be placed on remand in respect of case NO. CRB 2857-8/08 until the proceedings in case NO. HC 37/10 are finalized.

1. The Respondent be and is hereby restrained from instituting or attempting to institute the prosecution of the Applicants in the magistrates court in CRB No. 2857-8/08 until the proceedings in Supreme Court Case No. S.C 53/09 are finalized.

1. The Respondent to pay the costs of this application only if it opposes it.

INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED

1. Pending finalization of the review application under case no. HC 37/10 the Applicants be and are hereby removed from remand in the magistrates court CRB NO. 2857-8/08

SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

To be served upon the Respondent by the Applican’t Legal Practitioners.