Academics and legal experts have contended that the patriotic section of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Bill appears to have been enacted primarily to deal with political opponents who attack the government, as the proposed law does not address the socio-economic development issues faced by the majority of citizens.
The controversial ‘Patriotic section’ under Clause 2 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Bill, will criminalise those who criticise the State, demand sanctions or call for a trade boycott.
The bill has been approved by both the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament and is now waiting for President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s signature despite civic society organisations and human rights defenders widely condemning it for shrinking Zimbabwe’s democratic space and undermining the country’s constitution.
Discussing the implications of the Patriotic Bill at the Bulawayo Media Centre in conjunction with the Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) Thursday a lecturer at Lupane State University, Dr Wayne Malinga said whenever a new bill is introduced, it must be responding to a specific challenge.
“Whenever we have a new bill, it starts at policy level and policies respond to present challenges. When we look at this particular bill, which challenge is it responding to given that it has come in at a time where it is really reversing what is contained in the constitution,” he said.
According to Dr Malinga, some academics have compared Zimbabwe’s Patriotic Bill to the Logan Act of the United States, which was designed to deal with opposition politicians.
“For example, you have spoken about what is really transpiring on the ground but that act is used to selectively prosecute you as an individual because you did not try to be within the confines of making sure that you protect national interests,” said the academic.
Dr Malinga stated that academics examining the Patriotic Bill believe it is intended to deal with political opponents rather than respond to challenges connected with socioeconomic troubles, which are at the root of Zimbabwe’s crisis.
“It seems the bill is really designed for certain individuals who at this present moment, from where they are sitting, have to contend with what is contained in that particular Patriotic Bill,” he said, adding further analysis could bring out political linkages tied to the bill.
From his own analysis, Dr Malinga said he was inclined to think the bill was designed to punish political opponents.
“What is the bill really serving at the end of the day because clearly it’s not serving the interests of me and you who want a better life. It seems the bill wants to deal with political issues for those who want to gain political mileage,” he said.
A legal practitioner, Clifford Ncube from Mabundu and Ndlovu Law Chambers, stated that knowing the real objectives of those who enacted the Patriotic Bill was difficult given that it sailed past Parliament.
“We can never really positively be able to ascertain their true intention. The unfortunate part is that citizens only deal with the document during consultative meetings, which is when they try to gather what the bill is about from what is written,” Ncube said.
Ncube said looking at the Patriotic Bill, he does not see the patriotism that is championed, especially if the bill becomes an act and translates into law.
“I say so because I believe the tenets of what patriotism ought to be cannot be anything that is founded outside the four corners of our constitution that is very clear when it states any particular provision or any particular act or law that is in contravention of the constitution, is null and void,” said the lawyer.
He also explained that every legislation ought to abide by and be within the provisions of the constitution.
“This leaves room to say that a court will have to decide and say what the meaning of the bill is when one is arrested for contravening it. The court may have its own interpretation of what is referred to and meant in the Patriotic Bill, so the court can say in this particular bill that it is not unconstitutional,” he said.
“This will mean that every citizen will have to carry that court’s judgment with them. When the police arrest you, you say, ‘no this charge has already been defined by the Constitutional Court,’ but your application officer will also be free to tell you that they can’t read what the court said. So the police will arrest and tell you to say your argument to the magistrate.”
