"NO,.... NO AMNESTY FOR ROBERT MUGABE!"by Siphosami Malunga.

Amnesty for Mugabe out of question

 

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/opinion265.16376.html

I HAVE been following with great interest the reports of Robert Mugabe's possible exit from power with certain guarantees of immunity from prosecutions for criminal offences committed during his rule.

The story of Mugabe's possible vacation of the Presidency is certainly good news, but the reports of an immunity deal accompanying that exit is not.

The debate regarding Mugabe's exit with or without immunities is a political one in which the whole nation should openly participate in. The question of Mugabe's immunity for past crimes is both a moral as well as a legal one. It too should be openly debated by all.

Before we can delve into a discussion of immunity for Mugabe, it is necessary to consider just what it is that he would be receiving immunity for. Only once the full range of prosecutable offences committed by Mugabe or under his stewardship is understood can a debate on whether he should be granted immunity be held.

Political expediency cannot and should not be allowed to subordinate the interests of justice and rule of law considerations. I will set out the various issues that accompany considerations relating to immunity for human rights atrocities in transitional societies. As will be shown below, immunity or amnesty for Mugabe and his henchmen for the serious human rights violations committed during his reign is totally out of the question.

Arguments in favour of amnesty
It has often been said that however compelling the demand for peace may be, there can be "no peace without justice". This view has gained ground in the past decade, with concerted efforts in many states where human rights violations have occurred on a wide scale, for accountability for such violations. The arguments for trading justice for peace have been motivated by the fact, achieving peace and obtaining justice are at times incompatible goals.

Justifications for immunities have included the fact that, in order to put an end to civil strife or internal or international armed conflict, it is at times necessary to negotiate with the very same political, civilian or military leaders who have been responsible for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in those societies.

According to Michael Scharf, in such instances, insisting on prosecutions may unduly prolong a conflict or strife and result in more deaths, destruction and human suffering. The compelling need to alleviate human suffering is clearly a pressing one. An analysis of the manner in which several States have dealt with their former rulers who have committed serious human rights violations shows that this consideration has played an important part in determining that amnesty provisions be included as part of the exit strategy for an exiting abusive government.

The cases of South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, El Salvador, Haiti, Uruguay and Guatemala where amnesties have been granted for international crimes committed by former rulers in those countries illustrate this point. In such cases, the amnesty provisions have often been a part and parcel of the peace deal between the outgoing and incoming governments.

Zimbabwe is itself no stranger to the concept of amnesties. In 1980, the Amnesty Ordinance 3 of 1979 and the Amnesty (General Pardon) Ordinance 12 of 1980, both passed during the transitional administration by Lord Soames, provided that the there would be no lawful prosecution of members of the former Smith Regime or the security forces or persons or forces acting in opposition to that regime for any act done by them. This meant that those responsible for the most heinous crimes in the 1970's including members of the Rhodesian army, ZANLA and ZIPRA were not made accountable for their crimes.

Scharf, citing Payam Akhavan of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, says: "It is not unusual in the political stage to see the metamorphosis of yesterdays war monger into today's peace broker. Examples of this abound."

In Sierra Leone, the Abidjan and Lome Peace Agreement had to be negotiated with, among others, the former rebel leaders at peace talks including Foday Sankoh, now facing prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Likewise, Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who died during trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, played a crucial role in the Dayton Peace Accord that brought an end to the armed conflict in the Former Yugoslavia.

Even during the negotiations of the Dayton Accord, calls for a commitment to prosecuting known perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity were conveniently given a deaf ear by the peace brokers with the Chief U.S negotiator Richard Holbrook stating regarding the question of Milosevic's alleged participation in committing serious human rights violations that it was "not his role to make a judgement" and adding that it was not possible to "make peace without President Milosevic."

Needless to say, the turn of events whether deliberate or not has seen Slobodan Milosevic stand trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In Haiti, the military junta led by General Raol Cedras and Brigadier General Phillipe Bamby, which regime executed over 3000 civilian political opponents and tortured many others, agreed to relinquish power in the Governors Island Agreement in return for a full amnesty for their crimes which had been described by the some world leaders as "crimes against humanity".

In South Africa, following years of the State-sanctioned policy of apartheid during and pursuant to which serious human rights violations were committed, the apartheid regime negotiated a settlement, which culminated in the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission which comprised of a Committee on Human Rights Violations, a Committee on Amnesty, and a Committee on Reparations and Rehabilitation. In terms of the process in South Africa, persons who made full disclosure of their apartheid crimes accompanied with a personal application for amnesty could receive it. Proponents of this transitional system have argued that it staved off civil war and allowed for the "peaceful transfer to a fully democratic society."

As appears from above, the granting of amnesty for human rights violations is not a novel issue. What the example of South Africa demonstrates is the insistence on some form of accountability for known human rights violations. The absence of prosecutions for human rights violations must not necessarily entail immunity or the absence of justice.

Michael Scharf calls this a "misconception that the granting of amnesty from prosecution is equivalent to the absence of accountability and redress." Often as occurred in South Africa, and Haiti, the amnesty provisions are accompanied by provisions for compensation or monetary reparation to victims and their families, the establishment of a truth-telling requirement in the form of truth commissions set up to officially identify perpetrators and document atrocities. The proponents of these measures argue that although they may not be exactly the same as criminal prosecutions, they achieve much of what prosecutions are designed to achieve such as, "prevention, deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation "

The Advantages of Prosecution
I will now turn to the benefits of prosecutions. As has been shown above, in most cases where amnesties have been granted, it has not been because prosecutions have not at all been considered. Indeed, most societies faced with such situations have had a preference for prosecutions as opposed to amnesties. What is important to consider is that amnesties have not been the logical option chosen. They have been resorted to out of a lack of choice or as a measure of last resort.

Recalling that amnesties only benefit those to whom they are granted, it is no surprise that they are used by those most responsible for serious human rights violations who invariably brutally hold the reigns of power as a bargaining tool for their exit. Much like a situation of "absolve me from all my past serious human rights violations or else I will remain in power and continue to commit them."

There are many advantages of prosecutions of human rights offenders. The most readily ascertainable one is that prosecuting those persons responsible for serious human rights violations serves to discourage future human rights abusers from committing them. This ensures that the rule of law is enforced and respect for the law guaranteed. Societies where human rights are violated are often societies where the rule of law has ceased to exist. Zimbabwe is a case in point. In such societies, a return to democratic government must be accompanied by a re-establishment of the rule of law and this is signalled by the punishment of those persons most responsible for human rights violations.

It is difficult to countenance the restoration of the rule of law without the attendant prosecution of well-known human rights violators. A new regime that attempts to instill democracy or rule of law without taking the necessary steps to hold accountable known human rights abusers undermines the very thing it seeks to build and by so doing assumes responsibility for failing to provide justice and institutionalising impunity. This is particularly the case where the alleged human rights abusers are political, civilian and military leaders.

Another advantage of prosecutions is that it deters vigilante justice. A system of justice that does not ensure accountability or applies it discriminatorily encourages those whom it disadvantages to take the law into their own hands. This resort is understandable. It is impossible to imagine, say, what the victims of the serious human rights atrocities in Matabeleland, and indeed throughout Zimbabwe, should be expected to do in the absence of a formal justice system to address the acts committed against them, but take the law into their hands.

It will be recalled that in Haiti there were several reported instances of vigilante justice with members of the public exacting violence against the former members of the military regime who had been granted amnesty for their human rights abuses. Similar instances of instant mob justice have occurred in Romania during the revolution, where members of the public killed the former ruler Nikolaea Ceausescu. This resort to vigilante justice should be discouraged.

However, it should be recalled that where members of the public have confidence in the justice system to deal with human rights violators, they would generally submit them to it. The most important consideration in all this is whether the public is assured that the State judicial system will adequately deal with human rights violators. The greater that confidence, the less likely the resort to vigilante justice. Where a political transition is accompanied by amnesties for human rights abusers, it often leaves victims or families of victims with a permanent sense of helplessness and despair at the loss of the only opportunity for justice. This is what encourages vigilante justice. It is my submission that in Zimbabwe, the lack of prosecutorial measures regarding those responsible for serious human rights abuses including Mugabe and his henchmen would translate into a serious threat to the peace of the entire country not to mention constituting a festering sore.

A failure to prosecute those leaders responsible for serious human rights atrocities breeds contempt for the law and encourages future human rights violations. This is particularly the case in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe received wide acclaim for his magnanimous speech at Independence in 1980, where he agreed to "draw the line through the past" in order to achieve reconciliation of all the parties involved in the conflict. Although there were numerous advantages to this stance by Mugabe, such as the restoration of political stability, confidence in the political system, economic stability and thereby investment promotion it had as many disadvantages.

The main disadvantage with this policy is that it gave those persons who had committed serious human rights abuses the impression that it was not only acceptable but also commendable to commit such offences, as some of them were retained or absorbed into the civil service and the military often at very high levels. Whilst an attempt can be made to understand the motivation for the Independence amnesties as mentioned above, the subsequent selective and discriminate use of amnesty powers by Mugabe to benefit only his supporters and political cronies, shows a clear abuse of a mechanism that me only be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances.

Most horrendously, the use of amnesty provision in Zimbabwe has done exactly what amnesty provisions do -- perpetuate impunity. The seriousness of this can be gleaned by considering that the same perpetrators of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have continued to hold official positions in both government and the military. The worst result of the use of amnesty provisions in Zimbabwe has been the continuation of grave violations of human rights.

Following the Independence amnesties, the Fifth Brigade went on to commit incontestably heinous human rights atrocities in Matabeleland in the 1980's. Ironically, this spate of state-sanctioned human rights abuses was followed by a blanket amnesty for perpetrators. What is important to note with regards to the Fifth Brigade atrocities is that the amnesty provisions may have been also designed to cover Mugabe himself and his senior political and military lieutenants.

According to the doctrine of command responsibility, Mugabe could be considered as being individually responsible as a superior/commander for the criminal acts (including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by members of the security forces including the Fifth Brigade as Prime Minister and Minister of Defence at the relevant time where he failed to prevent the commission of such offences or failed to punish them after their commission. Mugabe's involvement in the crimes committed by the Fifth Brigade can be gleaned from his statements at its passing out parade where he called on it to "work with the people" and to "plough and reconstruct." He is also reported by the Chronicle of 18 April 1983 as saying that:

"Obviously it cannot ever be a sane policy to mete out blanket punishment to innocent people although in areas where banditry and dissident activity are rampant, civilian sympathy is a common feature and it may not be possible to distinguish innocent from guilty."

Yet another indication of Mugabe's involvement in serious human rights abuses by the Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland is his comments reported by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights in April 1983 where he is alleged to have said that: "Where men and women provide food for dissidents, when we get there we eradicate them. We do not differentiate when we fight, because you can't tell who is a dissident and who is not..."

Similarly, the then Minister of State Security, Emmerson Mnangagwa, then responsible for the Central Intelligence Organisation may also be considered responsible for the actions of those of his subordinates who are found to have committed serious human rights abuses. This is particularly the case considering among other things, the following statements attributed to Mnangagwa at a rally in Victoria Falls in March 1983, and reported in the Chronicle where he allegedly told the rally that the government had the option (which it had not yet chosen) of burning down "all the villages infested with dissidents" and that " the campaign against dissidents can only succeed if the infrastructure that nurtures them is destroyed."

In April 1983, Minister Mnangagwa allegedly conceded at another rally that the attacks against dissidents had also wiped out their supporters. He reportedly went on to state that those who followed government laws would have their lives prolonged while those who collaborated with dissidents would have their lives shortened. It is ironic some of the reports of an exit strategy for Mugabe have suggested Mnangagwa as his possible successor.

Needless to say, the then Commander of the Fifth Brigade, Perence Shiri, would also fall into this category. It may be necessary to point out that ironically, Retired Colonel Dyke, who was recently reported to be mediating an exit strategy for Mugabe may himself be a possible target for prosecution arising out of his Command of the Paratrooper Regiment in the Matabeleland campaign where thousands of innocent civilians were killed.

In relation to his own role in Matabeleland, Retired Col. Dyke is reported in the report Breaking the Silence: Building True Peace which cites statements allegedly made by Dyke to K. Yapp and cited in her paper presented at the Britain Zimbabwe Society's Research Day, June 8, 1996, as saying that had an "operation like the Fifth Brigade not taken place, that battle would have gone on for years and years as a festering sore."

He reportedly went on to say: "I believe the Matabele understand that sort of treatment far better than the treatment I myself was giving them, when we would just hunt and kill a man if he was armed.."

He went on to say, "the fact is that when the Fifth Brigade went in, they did brutally deal with the problem. If you were a dissident sympathiser you died. And it brought peace very quickly."

It is indeed ironic that Dyke should be playing a part in the reported exit plan but not at all surprising as naturally he would be expected to seek an amnesty for himself.

The "break with the past" or "drawing a line through the past" as Mugabe called it at Independence, should never amount to "sweeping everything under the carpet" as has happened in Zimbabwe. Following periods of undemocratic rule during which serious human rights violations have occurred, new or reinstated democracies need, more than anything else legitimacy. The primary challenge to Mugabe's rule since the March 2002 Presidential elections has been that it is illegitimate. Establishing a legitimate democracy requires that the past misdeeds of the previous regime are revealed in their entirety. This involves a transparent, credible and fair account of violations as well as those responsible for committing them. By their nature, criminal trials can generate this information comprehensively.

The starting point of accountability would be the factual allegations by the Prosecution regarding the acts committed, including the identities of the perpetrators and the various roles or forms of participation in committing the crimes. The next stage would be the evidence presented in support of these allegations and the evidence of the accused persons in rebuttal. Ultimately, the extent of information a criminal trial may expose includes the nature and extent of the violations, the method by which they were planned and carried out, the fate of the individual victims, the identities of the architects and the perpetrators of the crimes.

While it is true that truth commissions such as the one in South Africa can also provide a historic record of human rights violations, the criminal justice system has always been the primary form of accountability for criminal conduct. The fact that a criminal trial affords both the victims and the accused the opportunity to tell their story and culminates in a decision or verdict and punishment makes this form of accountability the obvious choice.

According to US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in Germany, the most important legacy of the Nuremberg Trial was that it provided the documentation of Nazi atrocities "with such authenticity and in such detail that there can be no responsible denial of these crimes in the future." In a statement subsequently quoted by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, he went on to say that the trial process had involved proving "incredible events by credible evidence".

Taking these views into account, Zimbabwe stands out clearly as needing prosecutions for past human rights violations. The Zimbabwean government has not only stifled debate of these human rights violations but has totally ignored calls for action. In the height of the Matabeleland atrocities in the 1980's, the government imposed a curfew in the affected areas and expelled foreign journalists much like it has done in recent times. This to a great extent prevented the accurate recording of the full extent of violations by the media and the dissemination of this information outside the affected areas.

Although the Mugabe government bowed to local and international pressure by establishing the Chihambakwe Commission to investigate alleged human rights atrocities by the Fifth Brigade and other security agencies, it has refused to date to make public the findings of that Commission. The government has responded to the damning report of the Catholic Commission and Justice, Breaking the Silence – Building True Peace regarding human rights atrocities in Matabeleland and the Midlands with indifference, contempt and scorn. What this illustrates is that the Mugabe regime has neither interest nor inclination to account for its past human rights abuses.

Instead of punishing known perpetrators like Perence Shiri who commanded the Fifth Brigade in Matabeleland, it has rewarded him with elevation to the position of Airforce Commander. This makes the argument for prosecutorial options of accountability more compelling. Not only has the government committed human rights violations, it has attempted to "sweep them under the carpet" and reward perpetrators.

Another benefit of prosecuting human rights violators is that in most cases, national reconciliation cannot realistically take place unless justice has been achieved. In Zimbabwe, the majority of the victims of the human rights atrocities of the Fifth Brigade are Ndebele-speakers who either supported PF-Zapu or were perceived by their attackers to support it. As a result the human rights atrocities have created a divide along ethnic lines where the Ndebele speaking part of the Zimbabwean population habours feelings of fear and mistrust for the government which at the time is perceived as having been Shona.

While in the past great efforts have been made by both Zanu PF and formerly PF-Zapu leaders to stifle discussion of these important issues, it cannot be denied that the Unity Accord between Zanu PF and PF-Zapu is widely regarded as having been the capitulation of PF-Zapu. In the absence of an accountability mechanism in relation to human rights abuses committed by the then Zanu PF government, victims of human rights abuses whether or not they were supporters of PF-Zapu remain skeptical of a government that has targeted then for human rights abuse in the past. It cannot be said that national reconciliation in the classical sense in which it must be pursued and achieved had been so achieved in Zimbabwe.

The prosecution of those persons who committed serious human rights violations would assure the victims, largely people from Matabeleland, that indeed the actions of the then Zanu PF regime are widely condemned, not condoned and that the general Zimbabwean society has no room for ethnic divisions or perceptions of discrimination on ethnic lines. Only such an approach would achieve true and total national reconciliation. Mugabe's exit from power should give an incoming government an opportunity to achieve true reconciliation of the entire country, taking into account events of the past.

A new government is not expected to have any political baggage relating to persecution of part of the population. It would therefore be folly for it to inherit it -- something akin to moving into a dirty house without cleaning it out. A new government in Zimbabwe, however, has a duty to assure all citizens of the protection of the State regardless of their ethnic or political backgrounds. Only by doing this will a new government gain and maintain the confidence of its entire population.

Yet another reason why Mugabe and his henchmen should be prosecuted is the responsibility of an incoming government to provide justice. While a State or government can validly forgive, via amnesty, crimes solely against itself such as sedition, treason, and other related offences, as the only injured party or victim of those crimes is the State itself, it is difficult to justify forgiving serious crimes against the person such as murder, rape, torture, unlawful detentions and other inhumane acts causing great physical and mental suffering to victims. For the latter offences, holding those responsible for committing these crimes is a duty owed to the victim.

By way of illustration: shortly after its deployment into Matabeleland in March 1983, the Fifth Brigade shot and killed 55 unarmed villagers in cold–blood in one incident in Cewale, Matabeleland North. In another incident reported by the CCJP, 52 villagers were shot in a small village of Silwane in Lupane on 6 February 1983, while other examples include the shooting of 7 villagers to death by the Fifth Brigade after ordering them to dig their own grave at Kumbula School in Pumula Village in West Tsholotsho on 13 February 1983, and the shooting of 5 villagers by the Fifth Brigade and their burial in a shallow mass grave at Sahlupheka in West Tsholotsho, the shooting to death by the Fifth Brigade of 12 people after forcing them into two mass graves at Tankahukwe, West Tsholotsho in February 1983.

Five villagers were shot and buried in a mass grave at Egomeni, West Tsholotsho, in February 1983, the CCJP also recorded the shooting to death by the Fifth Brigade of 12 people including two teachers by the Fifth Brigade at Cawujena in West Tsholotsho on 8 February 1983, the burning to death in one hut of 22 villagers at Solonkwe in West Tsholotsho in June 1983, the killing of 7 villagers in Salankomo, West Tsholotsho on 28 January 1983 after rounding 12 villagers into a hut and setting it alight and shooting 6 of the 12 people, including a baby and a girl as they ran out of the burning hut, the shooting to death of 12 people by the Fifth Brigade at Musikawa near Tsholotsho Town in Matabeleland on 30 January 1983.

These examples are not exhaustive. The question to be asked would be: "In what way would an amnesty for Mugabe and other human rights perpetrators ensure that justice is delivered to the victims of these crimes?"

There is no doubt that prosecuting and punishing those members of the Fifth Brigade who committed these crimes, together with their commanders, would provide the victims or their families with the solace that their suffering has at least been recognised and partially remedied. In addition, prosecuting and punishing violators would restore the victims' sense of worth as human beings and citizens of Zimbabwe. Prosecuting violators may also be accompanied by orders regarding financial or other compensation or restitution for victims.

In Matabeleland for example, many families of victims, through the acts of the Fifth Brigade, lost breadwinners and have had to scrounge to survive. At the same time, there are many reported cases of the Fifth Brigade burning down whole villages together with victims' entire life possessions and at times pillaging property and money from their victims. Justice would be met in such instances by orders for restitution or compensation. It would also ensure that those violators who are prosecuted are punished and send the message that such gross violations of human rights are intolerable in modern democratic states.

I have already pointed out the challenges that a new democratic dispensation would have with regards to delivering justice and re-establishing the rule of law. The positive act of prosecuting human rights violators constitutes an important signal to all Zimbabweans that the new government is committed to reinforcing the rule of law and assumes total responsibility for this important duty. On the other hand, failure to prosecute known violators engenders feelings of hostility and cynicism towards the new government, which "now possessed with the power to actually do something chooses to do nothing."

It is often said in post-oppressive regimes that have not sought accountability for past human rights violations that, once the former opponents of the regime "taste" or assume power, the interests of the victims who have suffered serious human rights abuses cease to matter, and these victims must continue to live with their suffering while politicking and amnesia takes centre stage at the highest political levels. It should be recalled that even with the so called Unity Accord between PF-Zapu and Zanu PF, the plight of the victims who suffered countless human rights abuses was never addressed or advocated insistently even by PF-Zapu as a condition of the Accord.

An amnesty for Mugabe and his henchmen would mean that he enjoys an extremely comfortable retirement at the expense of the brutalised Zimbabwean citizens while they remain grappling with the suffering caused by his government during his rule without respite. This cannot be expected to endear the new government to the people.

Finally, one of the most compelling reasons for the prosecution of Mugabe is the need to discourage future leaders in Zimbabwe from committing similar human rights violations. It has been shown that the magnanimous independence amnesties insured that none of the human rights violations during the colonial regime were properly accounted for. Those persons who committed these human rights abuses were not punished. This can only be expected to have encouraged the perpetrators of the Fifth Brigade atrocities to commit similar if not worse violations. Subsequent amnesties for the Fifth Brigade atrocities can only be expected to have encouraged further or continued human rights abuses by government authorities or agents in Zimbabwe as has been seen from the Parliamentary elections in June 2000 and the Presidential elections in March 2002.

Indeed, the serious human rights violations currently occurring in Zimbabwe including murders, torture and other forms of persecution of the opposition can be considered as spin-off of previous human rights violations which have gone unpunished. To illustrate this point, one only has to draw parallels with the shooting of Patrick Kombayi by the then Vice President Muzenda's CIO operative aides in the 1990 election, and their subsequently being granted amnesty by Mugabe following their conviction, and the recent brutal killing of the MDC President Morgan Tsvangirai's election agents allegedly by CIO operatives among other recent cases of election violence.

There is further credence, gleaned from a global analysis to the view that failure to prosecute violators encourages future leaders to commit similar or worse violations. There is historical evidence for example that Adolf Hitler took a cue, twenty years later, from the Turkish massacres of the Armenians in he First World War. The Turks had received an amnesty for their crimes. There have been suggestions that the failure to prosecute the likes of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Mohamed Farrah Aidid, and perhaps even Robert Mugabe may have encouraged the Serbs to unleash their policy of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and the Hutu's to do the same against the Tutsis in Rwanda.

On a positive note, in recent times, the international community through the United Nations has taken the position that amnesties cannot be granted for international crimes.

This has been the case in Sierra Leone where following years of armed conflict, the Special Envoy of the Secretary- General appended a disclaimer to the Peace Agreement which ended that conflict and granted amnesty for previous serious human rights abuses, to the effect that the United Nations did not recognise the principle of granting amnesty for international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The fact that an agreement has been concluded between the United Nations and the government of Sierra Leone for the prosecution of those persons most responsible for committing international crimes during the conflict in that country indicates that amnesties are indeed out of the question. Similarly, the prosecutions of persons responsible for serious violations of human rights in East Timor both in East Timor and in Indonesia further adds weight to the arguments for prosecution of Mugabe and his henchmen.

In conclusion, the granting of an amnesty is in itself an act of official forgiveness for past misdeeds. It follows that it must be the person to whom the misdeed has been directed or the victim who exercises the choice to forgive. In order to be motivated to forgive, a victim might take into account the fact that his attacker has shown remorse and "come clean" by confessing all that he has done. The victim might also consider that the attacker has apologised for his past misdeeds and offered some form of restitution or compensation. It might also be considered by the victim that an attacker has repented and chosen the virtuous path thereafter desisting from repeating the same acts. Evidently none of these preconditions exist in relation to Mugabe and his human rights victims. Who will dare grant him amnesty?

 

Malunga is a Zimbabwean lawyer based in South East Asia. Acknowledgements: Michael P. Scharf: The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, 32 CORNELL Int'l L. J. 507 (1999)