Members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) will in the next week launch an escalated phase of their free primary school education campaigning.

Members resolved to launch the campaign with a peaceful march. During the march, members will call on citizens to boycott paying school fees or levies. The government of Zimbabwe continues to show no goodwill to transition the nation into a full state funded basic education system. Additionally the state continues to neglect education budgets in favour of defence budgets as if it is at war with its own citizens. WOZA believe that Government and Cabinet continue to allow political power to supercede good democratic governance, and sound economic management systems and as such the ruling political elite must be held accountable by denying revenue. How many children could have been educated by the billions looted without any action.

Just this year alone the state will have received over a 100 million united states dollars in education related revenue but despite this they continue to undervalue education and the need to provide a decent regular wage for teachers.

WOZA members have studied state obligations and international instruments which clearly show that Zimbabwe cares less and less every year for the next generation to have an opportunity to learn.

a) The right to education enjoys protection in international law. Section 26 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that, ‘Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory…’
b) The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), in Article 13(2) (a) and (b), obliges states parties to make primary education compulsory and free, whereas secondary education “shall be made generally available and accessible”. Signing this covenant in 119 Zimbabwe had till 1993 to deliver this right intact for children but instead of progressively fulfilling this obligation the state is retrogressing.
c) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) provides for the right to education in Article 28. Article 28 (1) (a) places an obligation upon States parties to make primary education compulsory and free, whereas article 28(1) (b) requires states to make secondary education available and accessible to the child.
d) Article 17 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights stipulates that every individual shall have the right to education.
e) Zimbabwe has canvassed these international law principles through domestication which means bring these international laws into local laws. The Zimbabwean Constitution provides for the right to education in Section 27 which states that ‘the State shall take all practical measures to promote free and compulsory basic education for children…’ Further in the declaration of rights, Section 75 entitles ‘every citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe to a basic State- funded education…’ The Education Act in Section 4 demands that ‘every child in Zimbabwe shall have the right to school education’.

WOZA members believe the time has come to withhold revenue in the form of school fees and levies until the state truthfully and earnestly engages citizens on a plan of action to transition or fulfill its obligation on state funded basic education.

WOZA members will not only stage a peaceful march but have formulated a multi pronged strategy including an array of non violent direct action activities. This will bring the demand to all level of policy makers. WOZA have also secured legal partnership to draft a new Education Act. As the campaign is ongoing members will exposes violations of the right to education and document these so as to report Zimbabwe to the United Nations.

WOZA call on all citizens to participate in this way to hold the Government accountable and force them to the negotiating table with citizens. Enough is Enough!

Woza Moya August 2016

In a surprising turnaround, the two WOZA activists were taken to court this morning and released on five million dollars bail each. They have been remanded to 21st December. They have 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: “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”.

WOZA would like to thank all those who put pressure on the authorities in Mutare to release the two women. Your continued support is appreciated.

Mela Umntanakho Ngo 2008

U2008 uqale ngokwenyuka kwenhlawulo yemali yesikolo okwedluliseyo. Zithe zivalwa nyakenye izikolo bekulababalisi abathize,ingwalo zokubala phose bezingekho njalo inengi lezifundi zihlale phansi emakhaya ngoba zingenelisi inhlawulo zesikolo ebezisenyuka njalonje. Lonyaka akulabungcono ilizwe lifahlakele lanxa ulemali yakho kawufinyeleli ukuyithola,uthi lanxa usuyiphethe ofuna ukukuthenga kunzima ukutholakala. Akukho okusijabulisayo empilweni njalo kumbalwa okungasenza sibobotheke, kodwa abantwana sivame ukubathola bebobotheka njalo behleka bajabula nje ngoba bayazi ukuthi kulomuntu obathandayo njalo ozabanakekela. Inengi labazali liyazinikela kanzima ukuze abantwababo bafunde. Kwamanye amazwe kulicala ukungahambisi umntanakho esikolo abazali abehluleka ukwenza lokho bazithola besentolongweni, kodwa eZimbabwe umumo ubenza bengenelisi ukupha ilungelo elimqoka lemfundo kubantwababo.

Uhulumende wethu,onguhulumende ‘wabazali’ lalaba abazithi bangabalweli benkululeko, bayazi kamhlophe ukuthi impi yaliwa kulezithembiso, esinye ‘ESEMFUNDO YAMAHALA KUZENGA LEMFUNDO YAPHANSI’. Igazi lachitheka ukuze lesisithembiso sifezeke. Kulokuthi sikholise izithelo zempi yenkululeko, sibone nyakenye inhlawulo yezikolo isenyuka ngenkulungwane ekhulwini (1000%), lonyaka siqala futhi ngokwenyukiswa kwenhlawulo zesikolo ngezigidi lezigidi zamadola. Uhulumende uthi kasenelisi ukukhangela indleko zesikolo kanye lokuhlawula iholo lababalisi kumele inhlawulo ikhokhwe ngabazali. Kanti ilizwe alisela mali na? Nxa kunjalo kungani kulemali yokuhlawula (amapholisa agqoke ezabo) amaCIO ukuze benze ingqe yini, kuziphathamandla zikahulumende zona kasikhulumi bahamba ngamanzi ezimota ezinhle okwamagama? Kanti eyabo imali yokwenza santando bayithola ngaphi njalo kungani limali le ingaphiwa isikhwama sezemfundo ukuze isithembiso semfundo yamahala yezenga laphansi sigcwaliseke?

Izenga lemfundo yethu kayisanakekelwa iyekelwa ibhidlika nje bengagqize qhakala njalo ikusasa yabantwabethu isibengumnikelo kukhuselwa abafuna amandla ezombangazwe sikhuluma ngequla elilenkohlakalo, elingela zwelo,amasela ezinakekela wona kuphela. Singaqhubeka sithule sisekela betshontsha ikusasa yabantwabethu na?

Kungaba yinto enhle na? Ukuthi abazali baqhubeke besekela ngamavoti abezombangazwe abatshontshe ithemba lamaphupho abantwabethu? Inengi labantwabethu seliziphilisa ngendlela ezingalunganga ezinjengokutshontsha lokuthengisa imzimba yabo njalo inengi labo lidela amakhaya liyekhatshana kwamanye amazwe baze bafe bebodwa bengela zihlobo labangane.

Kuliphupho lomzali wonke ukuthi abantwabakhe babe lekusasa enhle – ukuthi bazakhula kuhle beqinile,bejabula,bandise umdeni wakwabo baphumelele empilweni bamondle laye nxa esekhokhoba. Ngesikhathi sempi yenkululeko sathenjiswa imfundo yamahala kuzenga laphansi ngoba sasifuna ukuthi ilizwe lonke libe ngelifundileyo. Ngakhoke ukwekela izenga lemfundo libhidlike kulicala – kuze kube nini sidubeka ngokona kukahulumende lo? Batshontsha ikusasa yethu okufana xathu lokutshontsha impilo zethu.

Manje sekuyisikhathi sokuthi sibophe ziqine simele ikusasa yabantwabethu lekusasa yethu

Asikhumbuleni amazwi ahlakaniphileyo abokhokho bethu – ikhotha eyikhothayo – ngakhoke mondle angakhula uzakondla lawe.

Amanye amazwi ahlakaniphileyo athi intandela yobulembu obunengi buyasibopha nko isilo sesilwane. Asifundeni inhlakanipho kubokhokho bethu – nxa singamanyana singabuyisa ikusasa yabantwabethu endleleni eqondileyo.

IWOZA iyalimema ukuthi lihlanganele lathi ekumeleni ikusasa yabantwabethu.

Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu remain in custody in Bulawayo Central Police Station tonight following their arrest earlier in the day. The seven other members that had been arrested before the demonstration had started have all been released without charge. It appears that they were not beaten during their brief detention. They were released one by one throughout the afternoon after the intervention of the lawyer.

Three members have received medical treatment for the beatings they received from riot police outside Mhlahlandlela. One woman has a broken finger, the other two bruising. All were beaten with baton sticks.

It is unclear what Williams and Mahlangu are being charged with as the lawyer has still been denied access by the Officer-in-Charge of the Law and Order Section in Bulawayo Central, Detective Chief Inspector Ntini.

Food has been allowed in this evening however and the pair appears to be in good spirits, although apparently Mahlangu was beaten outside Mhlahlandlela along with the rest of the group.

The order for the group to be beaten apparently came from Chief Inspector Mabhari, a senior uniformed police officer based at Bulawayo Central Police Station. He was also the officer that arrested Jenni Williams.

WOZA members that were monitoring the demonstration report that as the group marched through the streets, some of the comments from passers-by included a police officer commenting to another, “now that’s a proper demo” and a man remarking to another, “these women are doing a noble thing.”

Please continue to call Bulawayo Central Police Station on +263 9 72515, 61706, 63061 or 68078 to demand that Williams and Mahlangu not be mistreated in custody and to be released speedily.

In memory of Julia Chapeyama and Thembelani Lunga

The outbreak of cholera in epidemic proportions has brought Zimbabwe back to the attention of the region and the world.  Zimbabwe’s complex emergency, which is now causing so much suffering, taking lives and breaking the society apart at its seams, has been several years in the making. A key factor in creating a perfect environment for the breeding and spread of the cholera bacterium has been the neglect of essential services by the ZANU PF government over the years. But this has only been one effect of complete mismanagement and deliberate disregard for the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans. ZANU PF rule has brought a decline in basic standards of living for many years now; but in the months while Robert Mugabe has clung to power in the face of rejection by the people at the polls in March this year, the downward spiral has changed into a precipitous plunge.

In August this year, just when the first cases of cholera were being reported in Harare and Chitungwiza, WOZA undertook research designed to present a picture of the living standards of our members in Harare-Chitungwiza and Bulawayo.  Some of the results of that study are now available, and present a stark demonstration of the circumstances, which have provided the backdrop for the cholera epidemic.

Please click here to read the communique: communique-declaring-a-health-emergency-is-not-enough

WOZA leaders, Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu, appeared in Bulawayo Magistrate’s Court again today in a continuation of their trial on charges of disturbing the peace. The matter had been postponed from Thursday last week to give the Magistrate time to rule on a constitutional application on the grounds that the sections under which Williams and Mahlangu are charged violate their constitutional right to freedom of expression, association and assembly.

As expected, Magistrate Msipa ruled that the application was frivolous and vexatious and that the trial should proceed immediately. This is despite the fact that there is still an appeal pending before the High Court on the merit of the charges.

The state did not have their witnesses ready however and the matter was due to be postponed to 2.15pm when defence lawyer, Kossam Ncube indicated that the defence would be placing another constitutional application directly before the Supreme Court in Harare as allowed under Section 24 sub-section (1) of the Constitution. In this section, the litigant is allowed to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they feel that they are still aggrieved.

The matter has now been postponed to 11.15am on Wednesday 18th March for the defence to submit evidence of the application to the Supreme Court.

Members of Women and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA/MOZA) marched through the streets of Bulawayo today to mark International Refugee Day, commemorated annually on 20th June. Four simultaneous protests began at 12.30pm under the theme – real people, real needs. The four different protests began at different locations, one of which was outside Bulawayo Central Police Station, converging on the offices of the state-owned Chronicle newspaper to test if media freedom exists in Zimbabwe today.

Three of the four simultaneous protests, including the one that had started outside the police station, arrived at the offices of the Chronicle at which point they were attacked by uniformed police officers who brutally beat them, arresting many. The fourth demonstration was stopped en route by police who also viciously beat the peaceful protestors. At this point, we are still trying to verify how many people have been arrested and how many require medical treatment.

WOZA traditionally marks International Refugee Day as we believe Zimbabweans are refugees in their own country – displaced, unsettled and insecure. Government is still targeting informal trading, the only means of survival for most people and so many find themselves unable to provide for themselves and their families. Informal traders are harassed by police, their produce often looted and stolen. In a country where all goods and services are now charged in foreign currency, the inability to earn forex places the vulnerable even more at risk and forces more and more Zimbabweans to flee their country of birth to try and provide for their families. Through these peaceful protests, WOZA is reminding the inclusive government and the world that the people of Zimbabwean remain the victims of this crisis – it is time to put the needs of the people first. ALL Zimbabweans deserve to enjoy the full rights of citizenship; amongst others, the right to earn a living, the right to personal security and the right to adequate shelter.

More information will be made available as it is received.

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.

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.

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) has received updates of police sanctioning the right to protest by Hwange women and discrimination of women in Chitungwiza through operation Chipo Chiroorwa (women get married).

Information reaching WOZA indicates that over 100 Hwange women attempted to march to the Hwange Colliery General Manager’s office to demand their husbands pay. Police reaction group acted overzealously and arrested the ring leaders on Sunday night and then when the demonstrations went ahead, they used excessive force to disperse the women. The women who were gathered to march from Hwange Colliery’s villages 2, 3, and 5 to the general office. Instead of engaging the peaceful women whose husbands have not been paid for 5 months, the company remains silent and no comments were made by the husbands whose wives whose were forced to take action.

Meanwhile, hundreds of Chitungwiza women have been arrested and charged for ‘loitering’ for merely exercising their right to entertainment during the evening hours since Friday, 4th of October 2013. This is gender discrimination as no men were arrested or charged under this selective application of loitering laws. Additionally this operation is demeaning by implication that a woman who goes out at night is unmarried.

WOZA wish to remind the Zimbabwe Republic Police that the rule of law by use of baton sticks and excessive force should have ended with the promulgating of the new constitution where gender equality is a founding value and principle. WOZA call for the urgent and immediate formation of the gender commission and ask women to prepare submissions to flood the commission with word to create a culture of respect for the equal treatment before the law and equal rights for all genders in Zimbabwe.

WOZA extend solidarity support to women of Hwange and Chitungwiza and ask them to stand fast for gender equality and the struggle for a better standard of living for living for all Zimbabweans.