Police Officers under duress

Good morning all,

I was looking through the news on SWRadio's website and saw the story about police officers being forced to vote under the scrutiny of their superiors. Obviously, from a legal standpoint, this is in direct and absolute contravention of the police act which lays out precisely what a police officer may and may not do in terms of his/her political standpoint. Obviously though, this is also unashamed election rigging.

I was pleased to see that some officers saw fit to defy this illegal procedure and make the vote of their choice. Sadly though, these officers are in very deep hot water now. The type of hot water that costs your life.

I know, from personal experience that there are still a great many officers in service who are genuinely just police men and women - they have no interest or desire to be involved in the illegal behaviour of Mugabe and his so called government.

And that raises a number of interesting legal arguments. Mugabe, whom the world still refers to as "President" was not voted into office - either at this election, or the many of the previous ones - neither was a large portion of his cabinet. How does this affect the whole process of law? Surely any statutory instruments, laws, changes to the law, presidential decrees etc. are, by definition, just nonsense? I look forward to a day when they will be tested in a proper court - I think we would find that these "enactments" to be just what they are - rubbish!

But, of course - these arguments can range backwards and forwards and dribble on into the annals of history - for instance, another aspect of legality that bears examination goes back to Rhodesia days. The majority of the population were excluded from the political process - so were the laws passed then any more "legal"?? I recall that when I was in Morris Depot (The ZRPolice Training depot in Harare), we were taught that the premise for all law was, basically, a set of rules to govern society that are acceptable to the majority as a code of conduct. Funnily enough, the Law in Zimbabwe is Roman Dutch Law and it comprises two main parts - Common Law, which is pretty much based on the christian bibles ten commandments - things such as theft (Thou shalt not steal), murder (Thou shalt not kill) etc. Even Adultery (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife) was a part of common law until abrogated through disuse (Green vs Fitzgerald 1913).
The second part of the law is Statutory law - these are enactments passed through parliament and relate to the area of law that governs lesser offences and offences specific to the society that they operate in. There exists, within the statutes of Zimbabwe, various schedules of offences - which loosely classify the severity of the offence. All Common Law crimes are included as First Schedule offences. The First Schedule also includes things like Treason, Statutory Rape, Assault GBH etc.

So, it brings, to the fore, the whole premise of law and the society upon which the Zimbabwean society was built.

I think, however, that it is fair to say that we have to examine Law from the "fairness" with which it is applied. If that then, is our basis for law, then just about EVERYTHING that Mugabe and his so called government have done since he truly lost the popular backing - is illegal!

Certainly, this is the premise that I am using when I decide what I believe to be legal or illegal. The funny thing about Mugabe and co is that they themselves, do not consider themselves beholden to their own laws! So really, from any point of view, Mugabe and Co are illegal. I think they may have overestimated how much control they have over the forces in place to oversee the law. And the worm is certainly beginning to turn. They will find that they cannot cow everyone indefinitely - and with their "wonderful" management of the economy, the ranks of those who can see more clearly grows everyday. It will not be long before those "state agents" turn up to abduct a member of the police or army, only to find themselves arrested (not abducted, but arrested - for breaking the law!).

Time is against me - however, that is probably a good thing to stop me rambling on ad nauseum on a subject that whilst complex, is also fairly obvious!

More soon.