OT: Good News on Zimbabwe

[Hisler]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/a-landmark-ruling-in-south-africa.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120515

Op-Ed Contributor
A Landmark Ruling in South Africa

For the past decade, South Africa has been the preferred vacation spot,
shopping destination and international transit hub for members of the
tyrannical and murderous government ruling its northern neighbor,
Zimbabwe — a government that has rigged elections, beaten and killed
opposition activists and ruined a once thriving economy. All of this
could now change because of a landmark legal decision.

Last week, the High Court in Pretoria, South Africa’s administrative
capital, handed down a historic judgment. It ordered South African
authorities to investigate and prosecute members of Robert Mugabe’s
government who had tortured their political opponents. Under South
African law, the police are obliged to investigate evidence of a crime
against humanity, wherever it occurs, if the rule of law does not exist
there, as is the case in Zimbabwe.

The ruling has profound implications. It could cement South Africa’s
commitment to protecting human rights and broaden the application of
universal jurisdiction, which is the ability of countries to prosecute
people who committed certain egregious crimes outside its borders.
Unfortunately, the South African authorities want to sidestep it and are
reportedly preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which
oversees the High Courts.

Overturning the ruling would be a disastrous setback, and all those who
care about human rights in Africa should pressure President Jacob Zuma
of South Africa to let the decision stand.

The case began in early 2008, when lawyers gave South African government
prosecutors a dossier containing evidence that 17 Zimbabweans, some of
whom now live in South Africa, had been tortured. They had been seized
by Mr. Mugabe’s police in Zimbabwe during a raid of the main opposition
party’s headquarters. The police then tortured them with electric
shocks, mock executions and simulated drowning. Inside the dossier were
the victims’ sworn statements, corroborating affidavits from witnesses
and doctors and the identities of the alleged perpetrators.

Yet the South African government prosecutors have so far refused to
investigate these allegations, overruling the recommendations of the
prosecutor in charge of the case. They tried to argue that such an
investigation was impractical, and that it would complicate diplomatic
relations with Zimbabwe at a time when President Zuma was supposed to be
mediating between Mr. Mugabe and the opposition. The Pretoria High Court
threw out all these objections, and said that the South African police
and prosecutors had acted unconstitutionally by letting political
considerations stop them, and that they were obliged to investigate.

Although South African prosecutors cannot try the perpetrators in
absentia, the case will still have a galvanizing effect on the situation
in Zimbabwe. Anyone there who is under investigation will now risk
arrest by coming to South Africa, a country frequented by the Zimbabwean
elite for shopping, medical treatment, catching international flights or
visiting their vacation homes in Johannesburg or Cape Town.

Already there is speculation about who is on the confidential suspect
list. It is believed to include midranking and senior police officers,
and members of the military council that essentially runs Zimbabwe for
Mr. Mugabe. But future cases may reach higher, as South Africa’s laws
could trump diplomatic and sovereign immunity, which means sitting heads
of state could be potentially vulnerable, too — although they would have
to be on South African soil to face arrest.

This ruling would have a far greater impact than the current American
and European Union sanctions, which impose a travel ban and asset freeze
on Mr. Mugabe and his inner circle, who still routinely manage to travel
to United Nations gatherings in the United States and Europe by
exploiting diplomatic exemptions.

The most immediate effect would be on the behavior of Mr. Mugabe’s
enforcers in the run-up to the next elections, which are due to take
place sometime in the next year. During the 2008 elections, hundreds of
opposition supporters were killed and thousands tortured, a period
Zimbabweans refer to as “The Fear.” There are already signs of an uptick
in political violence as the next election approaches. But the fact that
the perpetrators of violence can no longer act with complete impunity
should make many of them think twice.

All efforts should now be brought to bear on Mr. Zuma and the South
African government to dissuade them from appealing the verdict. South
Africa’s powerful trade union movement, Cosatu, which is allied with the
ruling African National Congress, should strenuously lobby Mr. Zuma for
this law to be honored, as should the lively South African media.

Likewise, all nations that care about countering crimes against humanity
should pressure South Africa to accept the court’s decision. By letting
this judgment stand, Mr. Zuma’s government has a historic opportunity to
show its critics that it has a genuine commitment to human rights. If,
however, South Africa seeks to reverse the ruling, it will be a tragedy
for Zimbabwe’s many torture victims, past and future.

Peter Godwin is the president of the PEN American Center and author,
most recently of “The Fear: Robert Mugabe and the Martyrdom of Zimbabwe.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 15, 2012, on page A27
of the New York edition with the headline: A Landmark Ruling In South
Africa.