WOZA leader Jenni Williams was arrested this afternoon in front of the JOMIC offices in Bulawayo while commemorating the 10th anniversary of WOZA.

WOZA had arranged a meeting with JOMIC in order to request them to act urgently according to their mandate to ensure the implementation of the GPA. Several complaints of abuse of rights by the ZRP had been made by WOZA to JOMIC, but the abuse had not stopped. The WOZA leaders, Williams and Mahlangu met with JOMIC to raise this issue and to present to them letters to be transmitted to the GPA principals to draw their attention to the same complaints.

Meanwhile WOZA members demonstrated outside the building where the meeting took place, in support of the leadership and in commemoration of ten years of WOZA’s activities in defending human rights and promoting social justice. As Williams and Mahlangu emerged from the meeting, Williams was arrested by riot police who were assaulting demonstrators as well as members of the public. All of this action took place in front of the disbelieving members of the JOMIC delegation, who had asked during the meeting to be provided with concrete proof of the activities of the police.

Along with Williams, seven other WOZA women and five bystanders were also arrested; one of the bystanders is a pregnant woman and another is a female minor. All are currently at Bulawayo Central Police Station. A lawyer representing them has been allowed access and was told by Chief Inspector Mandere that the police were in a meeting trying to decide what charges to lay.

According to a ruling by the Supreme Court handed down in 2010, they can not be charged under section 37(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law(Codification and Reform) Act as long as the demonstration was peaceful and did not cause a threat or danger to the public. The Supreme Court at that time declared that the constitution protects the right of the public to freedom of expression and assembly and yet the police have clearly defied the order of the highest court in the land and violated these rights today when they broke up a peaceful demonstration and assaulted and arrested some of the participants. It was this very type of violation that was the source of the complaint to JOMIC and to the GPA principals.

We believe that JOMIC now has their evidence and expect them to take urgent action to correct the situation. The ZRP needs to be instructed in no uncertain terms by all the principals to desist from breaking the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And we do not expect that any prosecutor can take forward any charge that might be devised.

Approximately 200 members of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA/MOZA) delivered an open letter to President Thabo Mbeki at the South African Embassy in Harare this morning. The letter was pressing for a genuine agenda to the South African mediated-talks that is more transparent, inclusive and addresses socio-economic issues.

WOZA gathered at the Embassy in suburban Harare today to highlight the unfairness of talks that only involve politicians who will be not be addressing issues of social justice – the ‘Bread and Roses’ Zimbabweans need. It was also to pressure for the inclusion of voices at the negotiating table that will raise socio-economic issues – issues at the heart of ordinary Zimbabweans.

When the group arrived, they affixed placards and material strips carrying their messages to the fence. Some of the messages read – ‘The talks should be about Bread and Roses’, ‘all Zimbabweans have views – lets all talk about talks’ and ‘politicians don’t cut deals in our name’.

Whilst the peaceful group gathered outside the gates to the Embassy, male and female representatives went inside to deliver WOZA’s open letter, as well as their vision for a new Zimbabwe and a plan on how to get there through the People’s Charter and ‘10 Steps to a New Zimbabwe’. Embassy staff received the letter, and having delivered their message, the group dispersed. There have been no reports of arrests since then.

Please see below for a copy of the open letter. WOZA’s ’10 steps to a new Zimbabwe’ and People’s Charter can be found elsewhere on this site.

As the protest was carried out during a time of great repression and police brutality, only a select group of the very brave participated, acting as representatives of their communities.

WOZA would like to thank the staff of the South African Embassy for receiving both the open letter and the peaceful gathering in the spirit that they were intended.

WOZA leader Jenni Williams was arrested this afternoon in front of the JOMIC offices in Bulawayo while commemorating the 10th anniversary of WOZA.

WOZA had arranged a meeting with JOMIC in order to request them to act urgently according to their mandate to ensure the implementation of the GPA. Several complaints of abuse of rights by the ZRP had been made by WOZA to JOMIC, but the abuse had not stopped. The WOZA leaders, Williams and Mahlangu met with JOMIC to raise this issue and to present to them letters to be transmitted to the GPA principals to draw their attention to the same complaints.

Meanwhile WOZA members demonstrated outside the building where the meeting took place, in support of the leadership and in commemoration of ten years of WOZA’s activities in defending human rights and promoting social justice. As Williams and Mahlangu emerged from the meeting, Williams was arrested by riot police who were assaulting demonstrators as well as members of the public. All of this action took place in front of the disbelieving members of the JOMIC delegation, who had asked during the meeting to be provided with concrete proof of the activities of the police.

Along with Williams, seven other WOZA women and five bystanders were also arrested; one of the bystanders is a pregnant woman and another is a female minor. All are currently at Bulawayo Central Police Station. A lawyer representing them has been allowed access and was told by Chief Inspector Mandere that the police were in a meeting trying to decide what charges to lay.

According to a ruling by the Supreme Court handed down in 2010, they can not be charged under section 37(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law(Codification and Reform) Act as long as the demonstration was peaceful and did not cause a threat or danger to the public. The Supreme Court at that time declared that the constitution protects the right of the public to freedom of expression and assembly and yet the police have clearly defied the order of the highest court in the land and violated these rights today when they broke up a peaceful demonstration and assaulted and arrested some of the participants. It was this very type of violation that was the source of the complaint to JOMIC and to the GPA principals.

We believe that JOMIC now has their evidence and expect them to take urgent action to correct the situation. The ZRP needs to be instructed in no uncertain terms by all the principals to desist from breaking the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And we do not expect that any prosecutor can take forward any charge that might be devised.

WOZA members, Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu, finally were taken to court this morning at 8.30am, although they had to wait until 11am to see a magistrate. They were released on bail of $100,000 each and were remanded to 18 June. They have been charged under Sections 37 (1a) and 46 (2v) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

Chapter 37 – ‘participating in gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of the peace or bigotry’. Section (1a) reads “any person who acts together with one or more other persons present with him or her in any place or at any meeting with the intention or realising that there is a real risk or possibility of forcibly disturbing the peace, security or order of the public or any section of the public.”
Alternatively, Chapter 46, as read with Section 2(v) of the Third Schedule to the Criminal Code, reads “employs any means whatsoever which are likely materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort, convenience, peace or quiet of the public or any section of the public, or does any act which is likely to create a nuisance or obstruction”.

Their lawyer, Kossam Ncube, also took the opportunity to serve notice on the State that he will file a constitutional challenge to these charges on 18 June. His argument is that the wording is too vague and meaningless, thereby rendering them ineffective and a waste of time.

Police maintain that Williams and Mahlangu threatened the security of the police station by their actions and disturbed the peace. The police also allege that Williams and Mahlangu refuse to disperse with the others and so were arrested.

In actual fact, when the activists arrived at the police station they were asked to line up, which they did. Two officers then came up and dragged Williams into the station by her hands. As Mahlangu was in front of Williams, she too was dragged in. As the two were being dragged in, riot police indiscriminately beat those peacefully lined up causing serious injuries to many. Police officers were observed taking video footage of these events, which can only corroborate the violence unleashed on the peaceful activists if it will be shown in court.

Williams was also served with two summonses to appear in court on 23 July and 2 August for arrests in 2004.

Both women are in good spirits but bearing the effects of spending three nights in cold, wet conditions. Both will require medical attention.

As mentioned yesterday, one member, Alice Banda, has been operated on this afternoon. She had not been arrested but was hit by riot police on Wednesday, fell to the ground and then kicked in the abdomen with booted feet. Whilst she was on the ground, members fleeing from being beaten trampled on her. She received specialist treatment yesterday afternoon where doctors have discovered a lump. She underwent exploratory surgery this afternoon where doctors removed excess blood. She is now out of surgery and in post-op treatment. We are currently awaiting an update from the doctor.
It also transpires that two members were beaten in the charge office at Bulawayo Central. (See attached photo) Both were assaulted with baton sticks and one woman was prodded in her private parts with a baton stick by a male officer.

WOZA is thankful for the safe return of all seven activists who were arrested and praises the courage and determination of all its members who braved beatings and humiliation to stand up and make their voices heard at this crucial time in our country’s history. Having heard first-hand the passion and intensity with which people outlined their vision of a new Zimbabwe, which was captured in the People’s Charter, WOZA is determined not to let them down and to amplify their voices and their dreams.

Many police officers also complained to the activists that they should have gone directly to President Thabo Mbeki rather than to protest in the streets of Bulawayo. WOZA is giving their ‘advise’ serious thought!

WOZA and others arrested yesterday remain in police custody, still not charged.

The nine WOZA members along with other bystanders who were arrested during a WOZA demonstration yesterday remain in custody tonight with their position unclear. Last night they were told that they would be charged with failing to notify the police of a demonstration. This is rather inexplicable, since that charge applies only to the organiser of a demonstration, not to participants, and certainly not to bystanders. However, today, no charges were preferred, and the lawyer who attended in the morning, Nikiwe Ncube, was eventually told to return after lunch. When she returned she was told that the docket had disappeared. Quite extraordinary that a docket relating to well-known activists could be lost from one day to the next! It appeared that there was a struggle going on between two divisions within the police station – one insisting that all be released as they had committed no offence, and one claiming to be acting on orders “from above” to find a charge. At the end of the day, the lawyer had learned nothing and was told to come again tomorrow.

It has meanwhile turned out that there are nine, not eight, WOZA members arrested and five others. None have been released, including the minor. And all are complaining of mistreatment. Last night they were kept in the open cage when it was quite chilly after rains; only at 2 a.m. were they placed in the cell. Today they were forced to sit in the burning sun without any shelter for three hours. One of the WOZA women collapsed and was then taken to hospital by the police; it transpired that she had also been kicked by a police officer during arrest. The doctor at the hospital ordered an abdominal scan, but instead of being taken for it she was forced to walk back to the police station, a distance of three kilometres. One of the bystanders was a vendor selling juices; she also had to be taken to hospital, and her condition is not known except that she had spent the day crying.
Several of those who were not arrested but had been beaten had to be treated for bruising in their homes, as they found the riot police were waiting for them at the private clinic where any injuries are normally catered for. We believe that no one has any serious injury, except possibly the member who is in police custody.
We wait for developments tomorrow. By law the police must either release or charge those detained and bring them to court by 4 p.m., 48 hours after their arrest. We trust that the police officers will not further violate their rights.

Those who wish to express solidarity, please phone the Bulawayo Central Police Station.

263 9 72515 (general number)
263 9 60204 (Superintendent, Crime)

Request that they release all those who are not WOZA members, especially the minor, as they cannot be suspected of committing any crime.
Request that all rights of detained persons be respected, according to Zimbabwe’s constitution and other legislation, and according to the rights of detained persons enshrined in international law – especially that they be protected from inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment and torture.

For further information please call Magodonga Mahlangu at 263 772 362 668

Following on from the demonstrations and arrests in Bulawayo last week, over 100 members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) were arrested in Filabusi today. The exact numbers are not clear as activists are still entering the police station to hand themselves in.

Rural members of WOZA had gathered today in Filabusi, the administrative centre for Insiza District, to launch the People’s Charter in that area. The Peoples’ Charter is the result of an eleven-month process of consulting ordinary Zimbabweans on what they want in a socially just future. The people of Insiza were widely consulted on their vision of a new Zimbabwe and endorsed the People’s Charter fully in return visits to the district.

Several hundred women had gathered in Filabusi this morning but before they could begin to march, police began arresting them. Those not arrested then marched to the police station to hand themselves in, in solidarity.

This demonstration today follows on from People’s Charter launch demonstrations in Bulawayo, Harare, Masvingo, Gweru and Mutare. It also follows on from demonstrations last week in Bulawayo to press for the inclusion of voices at the negotiating table that will raise the social justice issues contained in the People’s Charter – issues at the heart of ordinary Zimbabweans.

Please call Filabusi Police Station on +263 17 202 281 or 247 to demand their immediate release.

Main points 29 page Judgment No SC 22/10                                 Constitutional Application 53/09

(1)    JENNIFER WILLIAMS (2) MAGODONGA MAHLANGU v (1) PHATHEKILE MSIPA N.O (2) THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE (3) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, CHEDA JA, ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA HARARE JUNE 4 2009 & NOVEMBER, 26, 2010.

L. Uriri with T Mpofu for the Applicants

legal Summary Supreme Court Ruling Williams- Mahlangu

F. Chimburu, for the Respondents

The court must be able to intervene not only against the direct dictates of the lower court but also against its effects.

In this case it means that the Court has power to restrain the magistrate and the third respondent from relying on the decision of the former refusing the request for referral of the constitutional questions and commencing the trial of the applicants pending final determination of the main application because to commence the trial would tend to negate or render nugatory the judgment of the court on the main application when it is given.

(a)    that the right which is the  subject matter of the main action and which he seeks to protect by means of interim relief is clear or if not clear, is prima facie established though open to some doubt.
(b)    That , if the right is only prima facie established, there is a well grounded apprehension or irreparable harm to the applicant..
(c)    That the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief.
(d)    That the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy.

It is the nature of harm which has to be considered and not its magnitude. It is clear that commencing the trial of the applicants before the determination of the main application would itself constitute a violation of the fundamental right to the protection of the law.

The balance of inconvenience test involves the determination of the question which of the parties is likely to suffer greater harm as a result of the granting or refusing of the interlocutory relief taking into account public interest.

The only restriction of the obligation imposed on the judicial officer is the discretion given to him or her to refuse a request for a referral when in his opinion the raising of the question is “merely frivolous or vexatious”

In the  context of s24(2) the word ” frivolous” connotes , in its ordinary and natural meaning, the raising of a question marked by a lack of seriousness; one inconsistent with  the logic and good sense, and clearly so groundless and devoid of merit that a prudent person could not possibly expect to obtain relief from it. The word “vexatious”, in contra-distinction, is used in the  sense of the question being put forward for the purpose of causing annoyance to the opposing party in the full appreciation  that it cannot succeed.

The question related to matters that needed serious consideration.

S37 (1) (a) (1) of the Act was not applicable to the conduct of the applicants as constituted by the facts on which they were charged.

Section 13(2) of the constitution authorizes deprivation of an accused person of personal liberty where there is a reasonable suspicion of him having committed a criminal offence.

The Magistrate was required under s13 (2) (e) of the Constitution to take into account the essential elements of the offence and the conduct which, if proved at the trial, would constitute the offence charged.

It is clear that the statute is not intended to be used to punish acts for the commission of which the fundamental human rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are protected under the Constitution.

The peaceful nature of an assembly of people is a fundamental element of the democratic principle of the freedom of assembly as well as the pre-condition for its enjoyment.

The statute is intended to be used to punish conduct which constitutes abuse of the fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression through behaviour or words which are inimical to public welfare. Whilst it does not prescribe advocacy of ideas it does prescribe advocacy of violent action.

A judicial officer faced with the question whether or not to remand an accused person on a charge of contravening s37(1)(a)(1) of the Act must in the analysis of the facts on which the charge is based, bear in mind the national commitment to the principle that the coming together of people in a democratic society to petition for redress of grievances and express views or opinions or discuss political an governmental issues of the day consonant with the peace, security or order of the public, is an indispensable means for the maintenance of the system of representative and accountable government established by the Constitution.

The examination of the conduct for which the applicants were charged with the contravention of s37 (1) (a) (1) of the Act, shows that they were simply exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

Had the magistrate acted in accordance with the requirements of s13 (2) (e) of the Constitution and examined the conduct of the applicants in the light of the offence with which they were charged, he would have found that the applicants had not gathered for the sinister purpose of bringing about serious disturbance of peace, security or order of the public or any section of the public. In singing, dancing, chanting slogans and waving placards with messages that did not incite violence; the applicants used legitimate means of expressing views or opinions on the political and governmental issues of the day.

The applicants were entitled to express disapproval of the political agreement signed by the three main political parties in the country on 15 September 2008.They were also entitled to do what they did to draw the attention of the Government to the grievances arising from shortages of teachers for their children in school at the time. They had a right to communicate their grievances to the people they considered had the right to receive the information.

There was no allegation in the outline of the facts relied upon by the public prosecutor when he applied for their remand, that the conduct of the applicants involved in its nature any direct and obvious danger to the peace, security or order of the  public or any section of the public.

In fact the applicants do not seem to have been arrested for what actually took place at the gathering. What appears to have prompted their arrest was the protect they raised against what they considered was an unwarranted interference by the police with the exercise of their fundamental rights when the later ordered the crowd to disperse.

It does not, of course follow that police should always break up a peaceful assembly even where it has not been authorised. They have discretion under s29 (2) of the Public Order and Security Act [Cap.11:17].

Once that had happened they should have taken into account whether the assembly violated the rights and freedom of others or whether it constituted a direct and obvious danger to the peace.

It is clear, therefore, that what the applicants together with the other members of the gathering did was germane to the purpose for which the fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are guaranteed under the Constitution. They did all they did in a peaceful gathering whilst preserving their willingness to act in conformity with the law.

TEN members of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) appeared in Magistrates Court one at 9:30am before Magistrate Vivian Ndlovu. Those appearing include national coordinator Jenni Williams.

The Defence were represented by Mr Jamela of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Nikiwe Ncube.

The matter was in court for Trial but no state papers had been served on the defence team so they could prepare for Trial. Mr Jamela summarised the activist complaints against the police and put the state on notice that at the next appearance on 21 February 2012, they will submit a written application for refusal of further remand. Jeremiah Mutsindikwa appeared for the state.

The charges come under the Criminal law (codification and reform) Act [chapter 9:23] Act 23/2004 Section 46 Criminal nuisance’ Acts constituting criminal nuisance – 2. Any person who – (v) employs any means whatsoever which are likely materially to interfere with the ordinary comfort, convenience, peace or quiet of the public or any section of the public, or does any act which is likely to create a nuisance or obstruction; shall be guilty of criminal nuisance.

These charges seem to contradict the Supreme Court Ruling obtained in 2012 by Williams and Mahlangu. The essence of the ruling is covered in the main points available at this link on the WOZA website. http://wozazim.org/?p=1181

Five hundred members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) in two separate protests marched to Parliament to commemorating Valentine’s Day and WOZA 10th Anniversary under the theme – Shosholoza for love!  The first protest arrived and was stopped 50 meters from the Parliament door by 8 baton stick and shield wielding Riot Police who refused to allow them to pass.

The activists took the opportunity to sing their love songs to the police and chant their slogans. Four leaders took the opportunity to address the gathering on the constitutional reform requirements of members and the role police should have been playing instead of stopping the peaceful activists.

A 20 minute impasse was broken up by the arrival of a police Landover. The second protest arrived and was also blocked. A senior officer then began to demand the activists disperse and pleas to allow one person to hand over the Woza Moya newsletter with demands fell on deaf ears. He then threatened to use ‘minimum’ force to disperse the gathering but before he could give any orders, a bigger vehicle arrived with over 30 riot police who did not speak to the officer but started to use their shields to push the women and men away from the road. One officer with the tear gas gun cocked the weapon in the air making as if to shoot it.As they pushed members away, some police officers began to beat the peacefully dispersing crowd and this cause pandemonium and people started to run away at speed.

One of the participants was beaten by 4 police officers at once taking turns to slay her across the neck and shoulders.  She apparently was being beaten met with this level of severity for telling them -‘the thieves are going free while you beat us’. After they set up her she then told them off saying – you are now the ones starting violence.

Ten members had to seek medical attention for soft tissue bruises and lacerations caused by baton stick injuries.

WOZA call on the police officers to be more professional. It is illogical to beat people as they are actually dispersing and a sign that police officers have too high an appetite for violence. WOZA also wish to draw comparison between the semi professional behaviour of police at parliament who go through the motions of engaging protest leaders whereas in Bulawayo the police offices just jump from their truck and thump anybody in sight showing a greedy appetite for violence. On 7th February the Bulawayo edition of the protest was violently dispersed by police officers and over 30 members had to seek medication for abrasions and bruises.

An opinion by Lawyer Andrew Makoni WOZA counsel 2009 on the role of police from the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23)…..the legislature is aware that processions inevitably interfere in some way with other people’s movements, hence the provisions of section 29 (1) (c) which prescribes what a police officer may do if a regulatory authority has not received a notice of the intended procession more than 48 hours before the gathering, where such notice is required. In terms of this subsection, an officer may restrict the gathering to a place or guide the participants along a route. This section does not give the police the power to arrest in the event of an unlawful gathering but the power to regulate the gathering. Neither does the act provide police officers with the right to brutally disperse peaceful human rights defenders.

WOZA members are currently facing two separate matters before the Courts

Criminal Nuisance Charges 7 February 2012 Defended by Nikiwe Ncube and Mr Lizwe Jamela Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. Current status: the 10 appeared in court on the 13 February for Trail which failed to begin. The 10, including Jennifer Williams appeared in court on 21st February 2012 but no response to an application for refusal of further remand was forthcoming. The response will be submitted on 1st March 2012 by Magistrate Vivian  Application for refusal of remand— Jenni and others , State case 7 feb 2012 .

Kidnap and theft Charges 21 September 2012 by Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu Defended by Kossam Ncube and Advocate Perpetua Dube deployed by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

Current status – Trail Began and state case closed:
1.    Application has been submitted in the High Court for the a review of the Magistrates refusal to discharged the duo at the close of the state case.
2.    Application to the High Court for stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the review process explained in number 1.
3.    If application number 2 is denied the duo will appear in court on 28 February 2012.

WOZA Leaders Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu delivered a letter of complaint to the Zimbabwe Republic Police Bulawayo headquaters on the treatment by the activits on 7 February by members of the Riot Squad. complaints about 7 feb treatment with police receipt stamp