The State withdrew charges today against seven WOZA members in Gweru. They had been charged under Chapter 37 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act after being arrested in early March. They were attempting to bring food in to 26 colleagues who had been arrested earlier in the day during a protest to launch the People’s Charter in the Midlands city at the time.

The members had been asked to meet the lawyer at the police station and await his instruction to bring the food in. The lawyer went in to get permission to feed those in custody but before he could call the group in, police officers had arrested the activists. They were charged for blocking the pavement opposite Gweru police station.

The 26 members arrested launching the People’s Charter will appear on trial on 24th July 2007 to answer charges 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’.

Also today, WOZA members, Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu, appeared before Magistrate Mrs Rose Sibanda today to await her reply to a request from human rights lawyer, Kossam Ncube, for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court for a constitutional challenge. In a surprise ruling, Mrs Sibanda allowed the referral to the Supreme Court. The duo had been arrested by police officers outside Bulawayo Central Police station on 6 June 2007.

They were charged under Sections 37 (1a) and 46 (2v) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, the wording of which the defence challenged is too ambiguous, vague and broad thereby making it impossible to determine if an offenses has been committed. He also argued that they also curtail the rights and freedoms of expression, assembly and movement.

The specific charges: 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”.

For a copy of the challenge Mr Ncube made against the charges, please see below.

WOZA launch ‘Occupy for Devolution’ series in Bulawayo More than six hundred members of WOZA conducted street occupation sit in protests as part of a campaign to pressure for a devolved system of government to be included in the constitution draft. Nine separate protests were conducted simultaneously at 11 am Saturday 2 June 2012 around the western suburbs. Members’ occupied traffic controlled intersections, traffic circles and main roads by sitting in for over 10 minutes bringing traffic to a halt. The  placard-bearing activists also passed out leaflets calling for a devolved system of government and asking motorists and passers-by to make noise or ‘hoot’ for Devolution. The scenes of the protests where loud and noisy as motorists ‘hooted’ their support.

At the protest on Khami road Ntemba traffic roundabout, the 200 protesters were just completing their activity when a small black vehicle without number plates arrived and plain-clothed police officers jumped out of the vehicle and began to assault the members with sticks bearing thorns. Eight members suffered the beating with one having to be taken to the clinic as thorns were imbedded in a wound in her neck.

The demands of the protests are the release of a completed draft constitution that gives power to the people. As talk of a second GNU increases, WOZA demand an end to elite occupation of our systems of government and a devolved power and accessible provincial government and councils. WOZA make the charge that Bulawayo, Matabeleland is DYING because of centralized decisions which kill it. The elite have killed Bulawayo and now they are killing other parts of Zimbabwe.

The system required should include the following rights:
– The right to select our own provincial and council representatives.
– Powers to make local decisions, based on our views about control and use of our local resources. And how we want resource distribution to develop the local economy and create jobs for locals.
– MPs and Councillors who will be accountable to us, the electorate, and the right to recall them.

The protests will continue and citizens of Bulawayo and other cities are asked to make noise in the street – Hoot or whistle to demand your human right to a livelihood.

WOZA members believe that a devolved system of government is necessary to save the city from sure death. Bulawayo is WOZA’s home town and members have been watching as it becomes closer and closer to death by marginalisation and neglect. Once Bulawayo was the industrial hub of the country, but centralised decision making has been used to sideline many business, social and political initiatives that would have raised the resource-rich province to great heights. This neglect has nothing to do with the current economic downturn as in early 1920s, the then Government refused to initiate a programme that would have brought waters from the mighty Zambezi river into the dry arid earth of Matabeleland and created an industrial and agricultural oasis. Recently public statistics quote the closure of more than 80 businesses and the loss of over 20 000 jobs. Over one million Zimbabweans are said to live in South Africa, with the majority being Ndebele speaking people from Matabeleland forced into economic exile by marginalisation.

WOZA selected this form of protest to make a point that public spaces are spaces for public expression. Since last year Bulawayo police have been taking occupation of the streets with large deployment of riot police, water tankers and other instruments of protest repression. Bulawayo residents along with WOZA members have grown weary of the constant and indiscriminate ‘stop and search’ of pedestrians and commuters. Most of the time Police officers manning these points will directly tell people that they are looking for ‘WOZA women’ with placards or WOZA material. see the hoot for devolution flyer

Members of WOZA arrested on 7 February 2012 appeared for the 15th time in Trial Court One, Tredgold Magistrates Court, Bulawayo. The appearance was for delivery of a ruling regarding an application to take the matter to the Supreme Court submitted on 22nd March 2012 after the Magistrate Vivian Dube refused to discharge the matter. Magistrate Vivian Dube was once again absent and stand-in Magistrate Tansy Dube did not issue the ruling but remanded the activists to 20 June 2012.

Defence Lawyer Lizwe Jamela of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights will submit a complaint as the accused have appeared 5times expecting a ruling only for the matter to be remanded. The application is being ignored thereby denying the accused access to the Supreme Court. To make matters worse the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar charges which were protest related. This application was taken by Williams and Mahlangu for a 2008 protest arrest and the ruling held that there had been a deprivation of Williams and Mahlangu right to liberty. Also in that application Magistrate Msipha had denied the right to access the Supreme Court. Magistrate Vivian Dube by her continually delaying the response to the ruling is also effectively denying the activists the right to approach the Supreme Court.

The application lodged in March 2012 seeks to ask the Supreme Court to once again determine the activists’ constitutional right to freedoms of association, assembly and expression, right to liberty and protection of law. It also makes an argument that the application is not frivolous and vexatious despite it having to be taken a second time.

The application draws on international cases such as the Suffragettes movement in the United Kingdom and the United States Civil Rights movements. Activists taking legal challenges for arrests during those periods also made the arguments that public spaces such as roads and parks are spaces for the public expression. The Supreme Court will be asked to assist in reconciling the right to expression and assembly with the argument over the need to protect public order. The application also addresses the role of police in a protest situation citing their power of discretion to disperse the protest rather than arbitrarily arrest the activists. If the application is successfully the activists will be removed off remand for the matter to be determined in the Supreme Court.

Williams and Mahlangu are also facing separate charges for Kidnap and Theft and will reappear in this court for a remand hearing on 30 June 2012. A review for a review of Magistrate Sengweni refusal to discharge the activists is before the High Court. State witnesses provided contradictory testimony and disowned their police prepared statements. The review application also seeks arbitration of court records which indicates the reverse of witness testimony in court under oath. The matter cannot be set for hearing in the High Court as there are backlogs in the magistrates’ court typing pool.

Meanwhile Jennifer Williams and 3 others arrested in April 2010 and kept in horrific conditions in Harare Central Police station for 7 days have taken an application to the Supreme Court regarding the conditions in these police cells. The matter has been set down for hearing on 14 June 2012.

Note: Shosholoza for love was the theme under which WOZA members marched on 7 February 2012. Shosholoza is a word which means ‘push with pressure’ a term used to describe WOZA’s marching mandate.

WOZA application to magistrates court to go to Supreme Court 23march2012

 

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) congratulate Amnesty International on the launch of their Annual Report under the theme ‘leading from the streets’.

WOZA national coordinator is in London, United Kingdom and attended the press conference to launch the report which was launched at the Amnesty headquarters by Secretary General, Salil Shetty.

He said,”2011 was a year of protests where ordinary people sent a clear message that it is no longer business as usual for tyranny and injustice.  Leaders failed to listen and the demands fell on deaf ears, only to responded with use of excessive force. It was a year where dictators were removed but not dictatorships.”

He went on to criticise the United Nations Security Council for their weak and late response when lives of peaceful protestors were at stake.

WOZA was formed 10 years ago to create a platform for women to lead ‘from the streets of Zimbabwe’. Since then Amnesty International have partnered with WOZA to help expose the injustices perpetrated against citizens. WOZA encourage Amnesty to keep watch on Zimbabwe as the nation prepares for a referendum and election which is normally
coupled with an increase in violence. Additionally, WOZA wish to applaud and encourage Amnesty to continue their work in raising the profile of social, economic, civil and political rights in Zimbabwe.

WOZA leader Jenni Williams has said, “The way the regimes have responded to peaceful citizens all over the world is not new to us as the Zimbabwe Government has practiced such repression on us. Reading the Amnesty annual report drives home a realisation that citizens are fast losing hope in election processes as a vehicle to bring change. What citizens cannot seem to do with the ballot they are trying to do by protests or by ‘voting with their feet’. I think it was Robert Mugabe who once paraphrased Malcolm X by saying, “we won our independence by the ballot and will defend it by
the bullet.” The next election in Zimbabwe will be a very contested election and we hope Zimbabweans will not have to dodge the bullet to defend their ballot.”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/report-2012-no-longer-business-usual-tyranny-and-injustice-2012-05-24

IN THE MAGISTRATE’S COURT CRB NO: 3101-2/07
FOR THE PROVINCE OF MATEBELELAND

In the matter between:
JENNIFER WILLIAMS 1st ACCUSED

and

MAGODONGA MAHLANGU 2nd ACCUSED

and

THE STATE RESPONDENT

1. The accused persons are facing a charge of allegedly contravening Section 37(1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Participating in Gathering with Intent to Promote Public Violence, Breaches of Peace or Bigotry) alternatively Section 46 thereof as read with Section 2(v) of the Third Schedule (Criminal Nuisance). It is being alleged that on the 6th of June 2007 the accused persons together with c group of about 25 other women assembled at the entrance of the Bulawayo Central Police Station and demanded the unconditional release of five of their WOZA members who had been arrested.

2. They are presently on remand on bail in the Magistrate’s Court in Bulawayo.

3. The application in casu is made in terms of Section 24(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The basis for the application is that the aforesaid sections under which, the accused persons are charged violate sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, which protect the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association as well as the right to freedom of movement respectively.

4. For starters, Section 37 (1) (a) (i) of the Code is couched in such wide and broad terms that make it extremely difficult if not impossible to comprehend the demarcation of the offence. The stated consequences for that matter do not even need to occur. It suffices for conviction that there was a real risk on possibility of those possible consequences eventuating.

5. In the result, all forma of gatherings are thereby placed at risk. The section unduly strikes that the heart of all gatherings. It presents a chilling effect on all gatherings so much so that all kinds of gatherings for whatever purpose can be said to fall within the ambit of the section. It is open to abuse and potentially prohibits all forms of public gatherings or processions.

6. In the circumstances, it thus violates the right to freedom of assembly and association, right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of movement.

7. Seeing as the offence is not only based on the occurrence of certain results, but is also premised on likelihood, in a similar case the Supreme Court in the matter of The State -v- Tsvangirai 2001(2) ZLR426 (5) condemned such wording in legislation.

8. Under Section 50(2) of the repealed Law and Order Maintenance Act (LOMA) an act of terrorism was defined as one likely to cause certain specified results.

9. The Supreme Court in ruling the Section to be unconstitutional remarked as follows:
“By defining an act of terrorism or sabotage widely and vaguely – in particular by defining it as an act that was “likely” to have certain results) and stating those results in extremely broad terms – the section would tend to inhibit persons from legitimately exercising their freedom of expression for fear of falling foul of the law) and would encourage arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.”

10. It is this submitted that Section 37(1)(a)(1) which is similarly worded to Section 50 (2) of the repealed LOMA also offends against the constitution.

11. The alternative charge similarly violates Section 20 on freedom of expression, section 21 on freedom of assembly and association and section 22 on freedom of movement.

12. There is no clear-cut definition of what acts are likely to constitute or create a criminal nuisance. It is again couched in such wide, vague, imprecise and all catching terms that make it difficult for people to determine when they can be said to have committed an offence and whey they would still be within the ambit of the law.

13. The offence is premised on likelihood. The results do not have to eventuate. It is a speculative offence that encourages arbitrariness in its enforcement.

14. In the case of Chavunduka and Amor- v- Minister of Home Affairs and Amor 2001 ZLR 552(8) the Supreme Court was faced with a similarly worded section of the repealed Law and Order Maintenance Act. The said Act in Section 50(2) prohibited the making of false statements likely to cause fear, alarm and despondency. The Supreme Court ruled the section to be unconstitutional and struck it down. It reasoned thus at page 553B.

“statutory vagueness cannot be allowed where freedom of expression is at issue; the law must be precise enough to enable a person to regulate his conduct. The provision was far too wide and vague. It forbade statements «likely” to cause fear, alarm and despondency, as opposed to actually causing it. ”

It went on to say at page 561B that:

“It is crucial, therefore, that the law must be accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable a person to regulate his conduct. He or she must know, with reasonable certainty, what the law is and what actions are in danger of breaching the law.”

It further stated on the same page in paragraph D that:

“a court must ensure that if human conduct is to be subjected to the authority of any criminal law, the terms of such law must not be vague; or otherwise there will be a denial of due process. ”

15. On the offence being founded on mere likelihood of occurrence of certain consequences the same court at page 562 B reasoned that :

“There is no requirement of proof of any consequences – of damage to the state or impact upon the public. What the lawmaker has provided for is a speculative offence. An offence has been created out of a conjectural likelihood of fear, alarm or despondency which may arise out of the publication of any statement. .. ”

16. The Supreme Court went on to rule that the section was too vague, being susceptible to too wide an interpretation. The aforesaid sections of the Criminal Code are similarly worded and thus fail to stand the constitutional test. They are manifestly ultra-vires the constitution and there is a very high possibility the Supreme Court may rule them to be unconstitutional.

17. This court is therefore urged to refer this matter to the Supreme Court for a determination on the constitutionality or otherwise of those sections under which the accused persons are charged.

DATED AT BULAWAYO THIS 18TH DAY JUNE 2007

JOB SIBANDA AND ASSOCIATES
ACCUSEDS’ COUNSEL
3RD FLOOR, FORESTRY COMMISSION BUILDING
FIFE STREET/L. TAKAWIRA AVENUE
BULAWAYO (Mr Sibanda/nm)

TO: THE CLERK OF COURT
Magistrate’s Court
BULAWAYO

AND TO: THE PUBLIC PROSCECUTOR
Court 2
Tredgold Building
BULAWAYO

Since its formation in 2002, WOZA members have suffered a wide range of human rights abuses, some of these gender based violence. Many violations have been directly targeted at the elected leaders of WOZA, Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu.

Violations to our constitutional rights to Freedom of Assembly and Expression
WOZA has a mandate to organise and conduct peaceful protest to press for social justice. At least 500 protests have been conducted; many without incident, but an equal number have attracted severe beatings and arbitrary arrests and detention by riot police officers.

? Since 2008 the state has escalated this repression by invoking section 121 and denying bail to members. On two occasions – May and October 2008, members arrested have been denied bail and kept in remand prison for more than 6 weeks.
? Since 2011, the riot police are deployed and directly interfere with our rights by stopping protests before they begin with violent beatings and arrests.
? Recently police have increased their attempts to stop WOZA protests by mounting ‘Stop and search’ roadblocks in Bulawayo.  Major routes to the city are ring-fenced by these road-blocks and women are searched and accused of being ‘WOZA women’ preparing to conduct a protest.
? Another feature of this has been the heavy presence of riot police in the city on days when the police think that WOZA might be planning a protest. Police strategy has been to separate any groups of more than 3 women standing or sitting together on pavements. They are ordered to go and wait in the bus terminus.
? Many members are arrested arbitrarily in this way and taken to the police station for profiling. Their life histories and details of their political affiliation, and they are photographed.
? On 19 January 2012, 17 members are arrested at a shopping centre in the city; the only male was released immediately and the women were subjected to torture and harassment. They were released at the intervention of a lawyer.
? Court appearances by WOZA members facing charges also attract heavy riot police attendance around the court, refusing to allow members to stand in groups at the entrance or exit from the court building.

Arbitrary Arrests at Meetings and other activities
WOZA’s mandate is to allow women a space to speak out on their issues and a vital component of this work is conducting meetings.98% of our meetings are not disturbed but the 2% result in arrests and detention in intolerable conditions.

? Members have been arrested in their homes
? Members have been arrested at places where they go for their burial clubs.
? Members have been arrested attending a ‘jam making’ development meeting
? Members have been arrested for wearing the WOZA scarf or T shirt bearing the message – “stand up for your rights”.
? On 18 September 2007, WOZA leader Magodonga Mahlangu was arrested in the city centre by four police officers and kept in custody for 48 hours simply because the President Mugabe was visiting Bulawayo and they wanted to prevent her from organising something that might embarrass him.
? Twelve members were abducted from their homes in the early morning of 24 August 2007 and threatened with death at a dam site if they did not divulge the whereabouts of WOZA leaders Jenni Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu. One of the members died two days later as she had been taken from her sick bed.
? The state does not fulfill its obligation to protect us from arbitrary arrest or detention and cruel inhuman and degrading treatment that results from detention.

Access to fair trial
WOZA members are kept extraordinary long in the judicial system appearing every two weeks or a month as a way to ‘discourage’ them from arranging protests.
? Despite a Supreme Court ruling recognizing our right to protest, as within the law, 10 members arrested on 7 February 2012 were charged with ‘criminal nuisance’ and have appeared already 7 times before the court.
? At the last 3 appearances the lawyers have been attempting to obtain a decision that will allow them to return to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the charge, but up to now permission to approach the Supreme Court has not been forthcoming.
? WOZA leaders continue to face Kidnap and Theft charges despite witnesses disowning their police prepared statements. On 12 March one of the accused Jennifer Williams was unable to take the defense stand due to ill-health and the magistrate revoked her bail from a higher court and sent her back to prison. There has been a lack of presumption of innocence and incarceration has been used as punishment before any trial is held.
? A politically compromised judicial system cannot deliver fair trial with equality before the law.
? There is no court recording devices in any court and so the magistrate can write a false record, and WOZA members have already experienced a serious misrepresentation of the proceedings in a trial by the presiding magistrate.

Equality before the law
? WOZA women are arrested for demonstrating while others such as war veterans are allowed to demonstrate.
? Deliberate and continued arrests and bringing of charges because it is WOZA activists. These charges cannot be successfully prosecuted due to Supreme Court Ruling of Williams and Mahlangu.
? During the numerous appearances local prosecutors and Magistrates cannot seem to make their own decisions as they are under orders to revert to ‘Harare’ (referring to the AG’s office) as we wait in court. Decisions taken in this way include the refusal of bail of WOZA leaders in Kidnap and Theft charges.
? An Ndebele speaking person cannot cope with conditions in police cells or prison as most of the officers insist on speaking Shona and refuse to speak in English.

Freedom from torture and inhuman cruel and degrading treatment
? Arbitrary arrests subject members to intolerable conditions in police cells that in itself becomes a form of punishment.
? Gender based insults emanate from police officers and prison guards.  Examples of these are: Get home and look after the kids/ you are witches/ you women smell of fish/ it is better for you to become prostitutes than to demonstrate.
? Conditions in remand prison are inhuman and friends have to bring food as the food is scarcely available and dirty.
? Other inmates face daily hunger 

Right to Trade
? Our members who already face daily arrest for human rights defending also face an equal risk of arrest for being informal traders.
? This is also the case for general citizens as the right to trade is being criminalized or used as an illegal pay top up to police officers as they demand bribes and also confiscate trade goods from vendors. 

From these few examples, it becomes clear that as WOZA members we have not been able to enjoy our constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression and assembly.  We have been subjected to unlawful arrests, unlawful detention, abductions, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture while in police custody and in remand prison.  We have not been able to access justice through fair trial or equal treatment under the law.  As women we have experienced gendered insults from law enforcers who enforce the law in a very biased and brutal manner.  The majority of our members survive in a collapsed economy through vending, but they are constantly harassed and prevented from carrying on this informal trade. Most of the rights which are violated by our law enforcement agents and by the justice system are protected in our constitution, but it is virtually impossible to get any redress because of the partisan administration of justice.

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) applaud the drafting team for the work they have done on the draft of the Constitution and encourage them to swiftly deal with parked issues and submit the draft to the second stakeholder’s conference without further delay.

WOZA has continuously engaged its members to debate constitutional issues and in December 2010 released a report capturing the responses of members to the Constitutional Outreach questions to the 26 thematic areas prepared by the Constitution Parliamentary Select Committee (COPAC). The report followed a 15 month consultative and civic education process. This work captured the views of urban and rural members numbering 10 361 (9213 women and 1148 men) from the ages of 14 to 93 years were included.

WOZA recognize that this work demanding constitutional reform has paid dividends as we see some of our demands reflected in the draft. We welcome in particular the following positive inclusions:
• Justiciable rights, including socio-economic rights
• Prohibition of discrimination against women on the basis of customary law
• A single executive head of state, eliminating the prime minister position
• A limit of two terms on the President • Provision for proportional representation in the National Assembly and the Senate
• Down-grading the Attorney- General to legal advisor of the government and establishment of an independent prosecuting authority
• Independent Electoral Commission to take control of voter registration and the voters’ roll
• Appointments of key personnel and commissioners of independent commissions on the recommendation of a Parliamentary Public Appointments Committee, which will subject candidates to public interviews
• Requirements for all public officers to declare all their assets at regular intervals
• Depoliticisation of the public service, judiciary, and security sector
• Amendment only by means of a referendum

We regret the following provisions of the draft:
• Presidential immunity while in office – this puts the incumbent above the law
• Lack of maximum age limit for the President
• The large size of the National Assembly – we cannot afford such extravagance
• The large size of the Cabinet – we would prefer to cap it at 200.
• The inclusion of chiefs in the Senate – if they belong anywhere it is in the Provincial Assemblies
• The inclusion of the TRC only as a transition mechanism and permitting it to grant immunity in exchange for confessions

We are deeply concerned that the following issues are yet to be resolved:
• Devolution of power to elected Provincial and Local Authorities; these must be a mainstay of our democracy which brings government closer to the people, decentralising decision-making and control of resources
• The matter of number of Vice Presidents – we obviously only need and can only afford one and cannot be swayed by ZANU PF internal politics
• The number of seats in the national Assembly and the Senate
• The issue of dual citizenship

Whilst WOZA is happy that some progress has been made we are concerned that this draft leaves hanging a key demand of Devolution of power. The whole Chapter 14 ‘Provincial and Local Government’ is parked and WOZA are concerned that the negotiation process must not be made public.

As the first draft is being rewritten we expect these issues to be addressed and place on record that we will be watching closely that the letter and spirit of the reform process remains true to the needs of Zimbabweans.

WOZA applaud the progress, but are worried about the principals putting ego before principle. We call on them to suppress their egos and allow the parked issues to be urgently resolved. WOZA especially call on the MDC who claim to represent the majority of Zimbabweans to refuse to concede on the issues of Devolution; they have conceded enough already; any more will constitute a form of betrayal.

WOZA will be watching and will not stand by and allow politicians to hold the process hostage for the sake of political survival or greed for power at all costs.

WOZA call on members of the press to realize that this a pivotal moment in our history and report responsibly on content and process without sensationalizing issues. Zimbabweans need hope that the new constitution will bring a new era of dignity, respect and tolerance.

We look forward to the Second All-Stakeholders’ Conference which will provide feedback to the drafting team and recommend changes/ alterations before the final draft is presented to parliament and gazetted. We will resist any attempt to fast-track this process.

WOZA call upon the international community led by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) who funded the outreach process to make sure that organisations are permitted to conduct civic education on the draft in a free environment allowing meetings and discussions. WOZA therefore call upon the principals and leaders of all political parties to demand the immediate enforcement of the GPA requirement on ensuring the security of persons.

WOZA also demand an immediate end to politicisation of the judiciary and security forces and an end to police and military occupation of our streets and a direct attempt to abuse our right to peaceful protest and freedom of assembly and expression!

WOZA is aware that a constitution by itself cannot bring change. Change will only come if there is political will to implement a constitution. It will be the responsibility of all Zimbabweans to ensure that their politicians are committed to implementing any constitution approved by the voters. WOZA commits to taking all appropriate measures to ensure that our new constitution reflects the desire of Zimbabweans for peace and democracy.

Note: The report was entitled: The Rising of the women means the rising of the nation – No more poverty and starvation, many sweating for a few to benefit. http://wozazim.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/woza-presentation-to-copac-291110.pdf

WOZA leaders Williams and Mahlangu appeared on 26th April 2012 in Regional Court A at Tredgold Magistrates Court before Magistrate Sengweni for a ruling. Magistrate Sengweni refused the application for removal off remand appearances and remanded the activists to return to court on Friday 29 June 2012. The application had been made due to High Court application still pending. The application is for a review of the Magistrate’s decision to drop charges at close of the state case.

On 27 April 2012 10 WOZA members, including the national coordinator Jennifer Williams appeared in Court one in the case of the 7 February arrest during a peaceful Valentines Day protest. The matter was for the Magistrate to rule on an application for a Supreme Court application regarding Criminal Nuisance charges. The Magistrate was not present in court and the matter was remanded to 18 May 2012.

On Friday 30 March WOZA founder and national coordinator Jenni Williams received the 2012 Ginetta Sagan Amnesty International USA award.

WOZA is proud to receive this award along with Jenni. The legacy of Ginetta Sagan is one familiar to the activists of WOZA. The award comes at a time of great trials and tribulations for Jenni and WOZA therefore Ginetta lives on to inspire WOZA members as they commemorate turning 10. Amnesty International activists from all around the globe have supported us through the hard times and it is therefore fitting that they also contribute to the good times with us as we turn 10. Williams who is accompanied by Magodonga Mahlangu is also travelling to Washington DC to meet with officials of the Obama administration. A public reception has been organised on Wednesday April 4th at Busboys and Poets in Washington DC at 5th and K Street in Washington DC.

Note: Previous awards granted to Williams and WOZA include the US Secretary of State International Woman of Courage 2008; Amnesty Germany Human Rights Award 2008; RFK 2009 Human Rights Award and the French National Order of Merit.

AGM 2012 Speech Ana Sagan 

Sagan 2012 press release

On Thursday 22 March 2012, Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) Leaders Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mahlangu appeared before Magistrate Godwin Sengweni facing Kidnap and Theft charges. Defence lawyer Kossam Ncube produced a High Court order to ‘stay all criminal proceedings’ in Regional Court A and applied for the two activists to be removed off remand appearances in Court pending the outcome of the Review of the Magistrates decision to refuse to discharge Williams and Mahlangu at close of state case.

As has now become a bad habit the state opposed the application and Magistrate Sengweni remanded to activist to 26 April 2012 when he will
give a ruling on if they are to be removed off remand.

On Friday 23 March 2012 Jennifer Williams and 9 other members arrested on 7 February 2012 in Bulawayo and charged with ‘Criminal Nuisance’ appeared in court 1. Their lawyer Lizwe Jamela, Chief Law officer of ZLHR, submitted an application to take a challenge to the Supreme Court. The Prosecutor and Magistrate will respond on 27 April 2012.

This Supreme Court application is in response to the State insistence on charging the activists with peaceful protest related laws when
there is a landmark ruling won by Williams and Mahlangu for their right to protest to be unhindered. This landmark ruling has been
successfully used by scores of activists but the Williams and Mahlangu cannot seem to enjoy it as a legal precedent.

On the 22nd March, Riot Police surrounded the Tredgold Magistrates court monitoring closely the movement of WOZA leaders and members.
Seven police officers chased anyone standing close to the activists so as to isolate them and scrutinise their movement. They even chased
away a mother breastfeeding her baby on the pavement outside the court.

When the 2 members walked across the road to meet another member, 2 Riot police followed them and searched them. One member was found with a WOZA branded scarf – standing up for my rights – which was immediately judged to be seditious and she was surrounded by 4
officers who held onto her clothing and marched her for one city block until a back up vehicle with a truck load of Riot Police arrived to
pick her up and took her to Bulawayo Central police station. She was advised that she would be detained but two minutes later Mr. Jamela of
Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) arrived the Law and Order plain clothed police officers indicated that she was not under
arrested but was merely picked up for profiling (personal details and affiliations). She was questioned about a ‘proposed’ demonstration
later that day. However WOZA was not planning a protest so she replied that she knew of no such demonstration only Court appearances. She was  then released.

WOZA wish to warn the Police that the public outcry surrounding the searching and arrest our young member should send a strong message
that members of the public are getting irritated with the constant presence of Riot Police in the street conducting arbitrary searches
and chasing people standing in groups away from the city centre. Zimbabweans patience with the military-style policing is wearing thin.

WOZA application to magistrates court to go to Supreme Court 23march2012