Independence, political interference and corruption
have attributed this primarily to the loss of property rights.23 The government has tried to blame Zimbabwe’s woes on the sanctions imposed by western states, although these are not economic but instead target government officials through travel restrictions and the freezing of their external accounts. But it is not only in respect of land that courts have so conspicuously failed to uphold fundamental rights. Despite mounting criticism, the judiciary repeatedly demonstrates a tendency, especially in high-profile and electoral cases, to lend its process to the service of the state. In numerous cases challenging the constitutionality or legitimacy of measures that are palpably in violation of the law, the Supreme Court has departed from established legal principle in order to legitimate executive action. With few exceptions, judges are seen to have collaborated with a government that has violated many of the rights of its citizens, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to free and fair elections.24
23 Craig Richardson, Property Rights, Land Reforms and the Architecture of Capitalism (Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 2006); and Zimbabwe Independent (Zimbabwe) 5 August 2005. 24 For example in Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe Pvt Ltd v Minister of State in the President’s Office and Ors S-202003, the Supreme Court used the spurious ‘dirty hands’ doctrine to block a legitimate challenge by an independent newspaper to the legality of new legislation imposing undemocratic government controls over the operations of newspapers and journalists. This judgement directly led to the closure of the only independent daily newspaper in Zimbabwe. In Tsvangirai v Registrar-General of Elections & Others S-20-2002, Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition, was standing in the presidential election against President Mugabe. Just prior to the election President Mugabe passed measures purporting to drastically alter the election laws and Tsvangirai sought to challenge the legality of these measures. The majority of the court ducked the issue by making a finding that Tsvangirai did not have any legal standing in the matter.
39