What is the price towards Zim's commission on post election violence

Hardly a week since the inauguration of President Emmerson Mnangagwa, the incumbent has stuck to his words and set up a commission on inquiry into the 1st of August events. With the UK Prime Minister Theresa May having affirmed Mnangagwa as the elected president in an interview on her recent trip to SA. The immediate appointment of the commissioners to look into the August 1 events is set to impress a number of prospective investors and the international community, much in line with the "Zimbabwe is open for business" mantra. Yet, like any political events in Zimbabwe, nothing always looks fine on the surface without an in-depth analysis.

The commission is led by former SA President Kgalema Motlanthe and comprises of renowned British lawyer Richard Dixon, constitutional law expert Lovemore Madhuku (a losing presidential candidate), political science professor Charity Manyeruke, a known Zanu Pf sympathizer, former Commonwealth secretary-general Emeka Anyaoku and former Tanzanian defence chief Davis Mwamunyange.  

Without looking at the personal attributes of the 7 member team, a learned friend in the legal fraternity stated that Zimbabweans do not need another commission whose members on the face of it seem to be arbitrarily appointed. Yet, questioning the premise that the Zim Constitution enshrine supposedly independent commissions. It therefore bothers on the notion on why abandoning these commissions founded on the supreme law of the land and relying on a Commission of Inquiry Act? Did the "new" administration consider that the terms of reference for this new commission may be different from the broad section 243 mandate of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Council (ZHRC) and consequently the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). 

The NPRC inevitably becoming necessary to address and redress in a rehabilitative manner the post conflict damage on those members of the society afflicted and affected.  Did the state consider that this commission may be more independent than those commissions with a precise constitutional mandate? If so, would it have been prudent to avoid duplication of tasks and save the taxpayers money. Since the 7 member commission of inquiry is made up of esteemed members from other African countries. It’s quite obvious that for these members to render their services does not necessarily come cheap. Therefore why do Zimbabweans need foreigners in the said commissions when they have competent and eminent local brains who have closer proximity to the physical, psychological and other practical needs and sensibilities of our society which call for address? Does the formation of this commission not offend the rule of law and does it not pass off as the President undermining the constitution and acting above the law? Why side-line or ignore the respective and relevant independent commissions under the constitution? Why not fund them adequately to make sure they competently execute their task?  

Or maybe if the local commissions are used there is fear of a less favoured outcome that may denigrate the new administration. So maybe just setting up a new commission with a foreign contagion is most likely to impress those seeking to reengage Zim at the taxpayers’ expense. I hope the costs of this commission would be clearly explained to the Zimbabwean public, who face constant cash shortages, poor healthcare facilities among the numerous daily challenges.

Signing out Generation X18