Online Reporter
In September 2024, President Mnangagwa swore in members of the Zimbabwe Independent Complaints Commission (ZICC) at State House in Harare, marking the establishment of an independent mechanism for investigating public complaints against security services. The commission is chaired by Justice Webster Nicholas Chinamora. The Sunday Mail’s NYORE MADZIANIKE interviewed the ZICC deputy executive secretary, legal services, corporate affairs and governance, MR TAFARA CHIRAMBIRA, on the work undertaken by the commission so far.
********************
Q: For readers who may still be unfamiliar with the commission, could you explain the mandate of the Zimbabwe Independent Complaints Commission and why it was established?
A: The Zimbabwe Independent Complaints Commission is a constitutionally mandated body established under Section 210 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Our mandate is to receive and independently investigate complaints from the public regarding misconduct by members of the security services, namely the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Zimbabwe Defence Forces, Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Service, and the Central Intelligence Organisation. The commission was established to give full effect to the Constitution’s vision of a democratic State, ensuring that our security institutions remain accountable, professional and anchored in the rule of law. We exist to serve both the citizen and the institution by strengthening civilian oversight and reinforcing constitutionalism.
Q: What gap in governance and accountability does the commission seek to address within Zimbabwe’s security sector?
A: The commission addresses the critical interface between the citizen and the State. Historically, complaints against security services were largely handled internally. While those internal mechanisms remain vital and respected, the Constitution wisely recognised that public confidence also demands an independent, external avenue for redress. ZICC, therefore, fills this gap by providing a neutral, impartial platform where a member of the public can be heard and where security institutions can also be assured of fair and evidence-based outcomes.
We do not stand in opposition to our security services; we stand with them in pursuit of a safer, more just Zimbabwe.
Q: Since its inception, what achievements has the commission recorded?
A: Since becoming operational, we have moved from establishment to effective delivery.
We have built a fully functional secretariat, developed robust complaint-handling procedures and established investigative systems that meet international standards.
Critically, we have forged strong working relationships with the security services themselves — relationships founded on mutual respect and a shared commitment to professional conduct.
To date, we have processed numerous complaints and issued recommendations ranging from disciplinary measures to administrative reforms and, where evidence supports it, prosecution.
Each case resolved is a step towards a more accountable and trusted security sector.
Q: How has the commission structured its operational systems, including investigation processes and complaint-handling mechanisms?
A: Our operations are guided by law, precision and fairness.
Every complaint undergoes a structured process: jurisdictional screening, preliminary assessment and, where warranted, a full formal investigation.
This involves gathering evidence, conducting interviews and engaging collaboratively with the relevant security institution.
Our findings are accompanied by clear, actionable recommendations and we monitor implementation to ensure that accountability is not just promised but delivered.
We take pride in a system that is thorough, impartial and respectful of both the complainant and the respondent.
Q: How many complaints has the commission received since becoming operational?
A: To date, we have received and processed approximately 60 complaints.
I am pleased to note that over 80 percent of these matters have been finalised — a significant achievement for a young institution.
More importantly, we are seeing a steady and encouraging increase in the number of complaints being lodged.
This tells us that public awareness is growing and, most significantly, that public trust in this commission is taking root. As we expand our footprint across the country, we expect this positive trajectory to continue.
Q: What are the most common categories or themes emerging from the complaints?
A: The complaints we receive largely reflect the everyday points of contact between citizens and security personnel. Common themes include allegations of excessive force, unlawful detention, harassment, abuse of authority and corruption-related misconduct. These patterns are instructive — not only for our investigations but also for our broader mandate.
They guide our systemic reform recommendations and help us engage security institutions proactively so that we move beyond individual cases and address underlying institutional practices.
Q: Could you share examples of outcomes or resolutions achieved so far, and what impact they have had?
A: Certainly. Our interventions have resulted in a range of meaningful outcomes.
These include disciplinary proceedings against errant officers, recommendations for prosecution where criminality is established and administrative corrective measures such as policy reviews or improved training protocols within specific units. In some instances, our work has directly influenced institutional reforms.
The impact is twofold: On one hand, the individual complainant receives acknowledgement and redress; on the other, the institution is strengthened. Ultimately, we are building a culture where constitutional compliance becomes instinctive, not imposed.
Q: What measures are in place to protect complainants and witnesses?
A: The protection of those who come forward is fundamental to our mandate. We operate under a strict regime of confidentiality, with secure case management systems and strictly controlled information disclosure. Our enabling legislation and the Constitution itself provide strong safeguards against victimisation or reprisals.
We take any threat to a complainant or witness with the utmost seriousness. A citizen should never have to fear seeking justice, and we are unwavering in our duty to uphold that principle.
Q: Are there plans to decentralise services or establish provincial offices to reach citizens across the country?
A: Absolutely. Accessibility is central to our effectiveness.
Decentralisation is not just a future aspiration — it is an active strategic priority.
We are working towards establishing provincial liaison footprints, rolling out mobile complaint clinics to reach underserved communities and expanding our digital platforms to reduce the burden of distance.
A commission that cannot be reached is a commission that cannot serve.
We are determined that every Zimbabwean, regardless of location, should have meaningful access to this institution.
Q: What international standards or best practices guide your investigations and governance structures?
A: We are anchored first and foremost by the supreme law of the land — the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Beyond that, we align our operations with the United Nations Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions, as well as African regional human rights instruments.
We also draw from comparative best practices in civilian oversight of security institutions globally.
Our commitment is to independence, transparency and procedural fairness.
In everything we do, we strive to set a standard of excellence that honours both our mandate and the trust the people of Zimbabwe have placed in us.
Q: What are your last words to the people of Zimbabwe?
A: May I take this opportunity to thank the Government of Zimbabwe for the foresight in establishing this commission and for the continued cooperation we receive from our security services.
Our work is a partnership — one that seeks not to weaken our institutions but to make them exemplary.
We are confident that with time the Zimbabwe Independent Complaints Commission will stand as a beacon of what is possible when human dignity and State security are pursued not as opposing forces, but as complementary pillars of a democratic society.
Bongani Ndlovu