Southern African Regional Assessment Mission Reports October 2007 – December 2008 Contents Page Executive Summary 4 Angola 11 Executive Summary 11 Introduction 12 Methodology 13 Historical background 13 Economic background 15 Legacies of the conflict 18 The Transitional Justice Landscape 22 Recommendations 29 Challenges 31 Appendix 1: Members of the Mission to Angola 31 Mozambique 32 Executive Summary 32 Introduction 33 Background to the Mozambique Assessment Mission 34 Mozambique’s Transitional Justice Landscape 36 Challenges in the Transitional Justice Landscape 44 Opportunities in the Transitional Justice Landscape 45 Recommendations 46 Namibia 50 Executive Summary 50 Introduction and Methodology 50 The Transitional Justice landscape 51 Transitional Justice Approaches 56 Challenges to Transitional Justice 60 Opportunities in the Transitional Justice Landscape 61 Recommendations 61 Zimbabwe 63 Executive summary 63 Introduction 64 Composition of mission 65 Methodology 64 Background to Country Assessment Mission 66 The Transitional Justice Landscape 68 Challenges in the Transitional Justice Landscape 75 Opportunities in the Transitional Justice Landscape 76 Potential partners 77 2 Recommendations 78 South Africa 84 Executive summary 84 Introduction 85 An overview of South African destabilisation in Southern Africa 88 The TRC’s focus on violations in the Southern African region 94 Conclusion 103 3 Executive Summary South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique and Namibia have all experienced massive violations of human rights in the recent past. Apart from Zimbabwe, where a political crisis continues, all of these states have further seen the end of major conflicts within the last two decades. The need to come to terms with past violations, however, remains. Only in South Africa have formal transitional justice mechanisms played a visible role, and even there, those mechanisms have left many issues unaddressed. In an effort to understand the challenges in these countries and evaluate the options for future action, the ICTJ Cape Town office, in collaboration with the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR), the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) and the South Africa History Archive (SAHA), as well as the Legal Assistance Center of Namibia, PROPAZ in Mozambique, Development Workshop in Angola and the Research and Advocacy Unit (RAU) in Zimbabwe, has been engaged in an assessment of the transitional justice landscape in the Southern African sub-region since October 2007. The assessments culminated in a workshop from 30 September to 1 October 2008 in which partners, along with civil society actors from the region, deliberated over the findings and recommendations from the missions, and finally the production of this five-country report. While the individual reports concentrate on transitional justice in each country, the discussions at the workshop allowed the authors of each study to exchange information and compare results. This comparative perspective informs the reports, which show transformation in each country has faced several common hurdles, but also show that each country has had unique experiences. In all five cases, there are some commonalities: the devastation of conflict on livelihood; inherent lack of transparency as a key aspect of the political culture; transition as a betrayal of ideals; extreme socio-economic inequality and high rates of gender based violence. In South Africa, for example, the extreme economic inequality between rich and poor reflects the failure to address the economic crimes of apartheid and the absence of adequate reparations. In Angola, meanwhile, transitional justice mechanisms such as truth-seeking are often relegated to the second tier of priorities, and “reconciliation as reconstruction” has become a national mantra. Throughout the reports, the interface between justice and development is an overwhelming concern. Other common threads run through the diverse cases. For example, several reports note the existence of and possible advantages of informal and traditional transitional justice mechanisms; evaluate the necessity and feasibility of anti-corruption measures; identify possible reforms of veterans’ pension schemes; identify gender-based crimes, inequalities and poor access to justice; consider community reparations schemes; propose healing programs and transitional justice education; suggest research on victims’ views; and call for the coordination of civil society initiatives. Yet the differences between the cases are as compelling as their similarities. The political crisis in Zimbabwe makes any preparation for transitional justice mechanisms uncertain, while the end of devastating conflicts in Angola and Mozambique means that discussions of transitional justice take place in the context of extreme war-weariness. In Namibia the continued dominance of 4 SWAPO, the liberation movement and current ruling party, has prevented official investigation of the past. In South Africa, finally, the much-publicised Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) exposed the truth behind many individual violations of rights under apartheid, but produced an incomplete record of abuses and failed to gain the cooperation of many former high- level officials, who have nonetheless not been prosecuted. Below are brief summaries of findings for each country, along with each assessment’s chief recommendations. Mozambique Assessment Findings The assessment found that while no formal transitional justice mechanisms have been implemented in Mozambique, a wide range of transitional justice mechanisms have operated in the country since the first post-conflict elections in 1994. These had often been overlooked because they were not institutionalised as part of a “national” project. Informal transitional justice mechanisms initiated through both the churches and traditional leaders were critical through performing cleansing and reintegration ceremonies for ex-combatants in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. Nonetheless, a critical mass of those affected by the conflict was not included in these processes and the assessment heard that this failure is reflected in some of the current challenges facing the country. The growing economic disparities in the country and socio- economic injustice concerns as well as the increasing dominance of the ruling party FRELIMO are increasingly jeopardizing Mozambique’s peaceful transition. Recommendations The report calls for: Support for human rights education Research into the reach and efficacy of traditional African transitional structures as reintegration mechanisms Empirical research to examine the reintegration of children used during the conflict and track their journey from the bush to the present An oral history documenting the role and experiences of women in the conflict in order to create a more inclusive historical record The impact of international aid requirements such as structural adjustment programs to be researched Examination of how restitution and reparations could be achieved for South Africa’s destabilisation of Mozambique during the apartheid era. Zimbabwe Assessment Findings The transitional justice situation in Zimbabwe remains uncertain because of the fragile nature of the 15 September 2008 power-sharing agreement. If the agreement holds, there are opportunities for transitional justice, although justice and accountability have been given minimal space. While the agreement makes no explicit reference to amnesty, political commitment presupposes an 5 understanding between all signatories of a de facto amnesty. There is no sunset clause, but it is vague on issues of institutional reform. The assessment was postponed on several occasions due to the deteriorating security climate in the aftermath of the 29 March electoral violence. While the Mission was unable to travel outside of Harare, the in-country partner RAU received over 500 responses to a victim survey which informed the report. The assessment found a relatively low awareness and understanding of transitional justice mechanisms. Education on transitional justice is a clear priority: victims expressed a desire for justice, but often had little knowledge of possible mechanisms. In response to questions about transitional justice measures, however, victims and civil society emphasized justice, especially prosecutions and reparations, and showed little enthusiasm for more reconciliatory options. Even church-based groups, while discussing the need for reconciliation, emphasized that crimes should not be forgotten, and that victims should receive compensation. Overall, the most urgent desire of respondents was for reparations and mechanisms to address economic crimes. Recommendations The report calls for: Increased transitional justice education. A broad-based training effort could counter the knowledge gap on transitional justice A national healing process. Many victims and perpetrators continue to live side by side, and healing is urgently necessary. The approach to healing must be bottom-up rather than top-down. In this regard, the Mission found that the work by the Tree of Life offers a possible model, but such programmes need to cover a much wider area Research on victims’ views and models of transitional justice. By coupling transitional justice training with a survey effort, it would be possible to document violations and get victim feedback on transitional justice options. While NGOs are already