admin
Gibson Nyikadzino
Correspondent
There are two pieces of legislative amendments in Zimbabwe that await the President’s assent; the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Bill.
More has been spoken and written about both, but only a few things have been put in context as what is relevant about these amendments have been lost along the way of political posturing.
Today’s argument locates the importance of the amendments to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to legally cleanse the nation-state of political, social and economic heresies by compatriots that seek to attract unjustifiable attacks and cause injury to the interests of the State just for political points.
It is in this context that some have decided to designate the amendments that Government is crafting as the “Patriot Act”, when actually it is not named that way.
But the law is the law, and without existing laws, it is difficult to correct anomalies, maintain peace, order, stability and ensure security.
Little lies, big consequences
First of all, there is nothing called the Patriot Bill in Zimbabwe or the Patriotic Act as how some media organisations and journalists have misled their national, regional and global audiences.
Surprisingly, many people have fallen victim of the “Patriot Bill” because there is now little desire by audiences to read and verify to fact check on whether what the journalists write does or does not exist.
The Patriot Bill does not exist.
Rather, Clause 2 of the amendments to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act where it talks about unpatriotic acts is the site where mainly civic and opposition groups have gained traction for misinforming the audiences, a disease transmitted to some media sections.
Such is the impact of the little lies whose snowballing effect can be triggered by the media to an unquestioning audience.
Clause Two (2) proposes that a Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident in the country will be committing a crime of “wilfully damaging the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe” by taking part in a meeting involving or convened by an agent of a foreign government, if the citizen or resident knows or has reason to believe that the object of the meeting is “to consider or plan armed intervention in Zimbabwe by the foreign government, or to subvert or overthrow the constitutional Zimbabwean Government, or to consider, implement or extend sanctions or a trade boycott against Zimbabwe, or against an individual or official if the sanctions or boycott affect a substantial section of the people of Zimbabwe.”
In post-independent Zimbabwe, there are opposition compradors who have inclined themselves to become wagging tails of the neo-imperialist order.
Such people like David Coltart and Tendai Biti, among others, in 2001 colluded with the US Congress and chief proponents of ZIDERA, Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to craft punitive sanctions against Zimbabwe.
It would be uncaring for a state that wants to play a key role in regional, continental and global transactions to remain mute when its interests are wilfully threatened by its citizens in such a way, all in the interest of power.
Unique, peculiar Zimbabwe
Politically, what makes Zimbabwe a unique and peculiar territory is how the opposition, post-millennium has been doing its politics.
The opposition since 2000 has not been able to attach, speak and give the weight of its ideas by creating political interfaces that speak to ordinary people without infusing that idea that further “help will come from foreign governments”.
In 2002, nearly three weeks after the US passed the ZIDERA sanctions in December 2001, the late MDC leader Tsvangirai in a BBC interview called on South Africa to impose direct sanctions and cut electricity exports to Zimbabwe.
During a 2004 tour of Europe, the opposition also told Swedish leadership that it was prudent for the European Union (EU) to extend sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Even so, in 2009, Nelson Chamisa confirmed his thoughts about what he wished for Zimbabwe when he said the only option to remove Zanu PF from power was for the US to effect a military invasion in Zimbabwe.
This is the same man who in 2018 before the harmonised elections told the BBCs Stephen Sackur that if he won the elections he would expel Chinese investors from Zimbabwe and invite the West as replacing investors.
China is Zimbabwe’s biggest FDI source.
At the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic in May 2020, opposition politician Biti wrote a letter to the World Bank to push for conditions to a US$7 million to a health fund relief against Zimbabwe.
That was an attempt by the opposition legislator to block humanitarian relief against Zimbabwe.
These circumstances make Zimbabwe a unique and peculiar case in that nowhere in Southern Africa have politicians witnessed an opposition party comfortable discussing damaging conversations with foreigners, foreign governments and institutions and hurt or injure the core and objective interests of the country in pursuit of power.
When the opposition won in Malawi in 2020, ushering the leadership of President Lazarus Chakwera, in 2021 for President Hakainde Hichilema in Zambia and in 2022 the premiership of Sam Matekane in the Kingdom of Lesotho, the basis of winning the elections were instrumentalised on the opposition leaders’ interactions with grassroots instead of pleading for foreign help.
Even in South Africa, where Julius Malema’s EFF wants to pose as a neo-revolutionary and radical party, and espousing other positions about family values which are not agreed to by many in the context of true revolutionary principle, they have never called on any foreign help to unconstitutionally remove the African National Congress (ANC) from power.
It is in this context that the Clause Two (2) of the amendments to the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act should be considered.
Putting Zimbabwe First
In journalistic circles, assenting to these amendments should be an opportunity to advocate for the re-emergence of patriotic journalism in Zimbabwe, which comes as an offshoot of the country’s nationalist historiography.
This is a journalism that has to be stimulated from the enactment of these amendments, especially in these worrying and changing times of international violent conflict as a response to protecting national security.
The proposed amendments are to be applied on every Zimbabwean who will violate the law that seeks to protect the interests of the state.
No writer, media organisation and opinion leaders should be seen to mislead the people. The amendments are not against criticism that can be passed to Government in search of solutions to national challenges.
Debates around these proposed amendments show that Government is sincere that it is neither immune nor is it vaccinated from criticism.
What is likely to be a contravention is “wilfully damaging the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe” by meeting foreign agents, in or outside, the state.
Zimbabweans, remember we are one. This is homeland!
Online Reporter