By Promise Dube
The forthcoming Gukurahundi outreach programme has drawn criticism from human rights advocates who warn that the process risks lacking credibility and effectiveness without a clear legal framework.
The government announced that the hearings into the 1980s massacres, which left an estimated 20 000 dead in Matabeleland and the Midlands, will begin on 26 June.
However, media access has been barred, and victims will only appear privately before panels of traditional leaders, a move that has raised serious concerns among civil society groups.
Speaking on This Morning on Asakhe, a current affairs programme hosted by the Centre for Innovation and Technology (CITE) on X (formerly Twitter), participants questioned the integrity of the process in the absence of legislation.
Mbuso Fuzwayo, Secretary-General of the pressure group Ibhetshu LikaZulu, warned the outreach risked repeating the failures of past commissions that collapsed due to political interference and lack of transparency.
“We expect to hear the perpetrators’ side of the story. If this is just about victims privately speaking to their chiefs, the process will fall short. Gukurahundi happened in communities, which demands a public, community-focused solution,” he said.
Human rights lawyer Nikiwe Tshabalala echoed these concerns, describing the process as a “non-starter” without enabling laws to guide its structure and outcomes.
“We need legislation governing this process. Without proper legal framing and public engagement, the promise of justice is hollow,” she said.
Tshabalala also questioned the absence of a clear plan for reparations, a key demand from survivors.
“I’ve not seen any commitment to compensation or redress. Are we not simply reopening old wounds without offering remedies?” she asked.
Although government officials claim the process is victim-centred and culturally sensitive by involving local chiefs, critics argue this approach risks retraumatising survivors rather than promoting healing, especially in the absence of independent oversight.
“This feels insincere. Who decides which cases matter?” asked Buhle, another participant on the programme.
Fuzwayo added that chiefs may not always be viewed as neutral by victims.
“Making survivors approach their chiefs in private, without guarantees of impartiality or protection, is not healing, it’s deepening their trauma,” he said.
At CITE, we dig deep to preserve the stories that shaped us—ZPRA Liberation Archives, the DRC War, and more. These are not just stories—they’re our roots. We don’t hide them behind paywalls. We rely on you to keep them alive. Click here to donate: https://cite.org.zw/support-local-news/