Zimpapers Logo

The Herald, November 3, 1979

LONDON. — Britain yesterday presented its pre-independence arrangements for Zimbabwe Rhodesia, which Lord Carrington said offered “the only prospect of ending the war”.

Lord Carrington, who made one of his rare personal appearances at a Lancaster House conference Press briefing, said he had asked both the Salisbury delegation and the Patriotic Front to respond to this document by Monday.

Bishop Muzorewa has already agreed to the British plan which will strip him and his cabinet of their power and hand this to a British Governor during a limited run-up to elections.

The Patriotic Front continue to oppose the plan and press for a power-sharing formula during the interim period.

Mr Mugabe and Mr Nkomo are due to brief reporters covering the conference today. Lord Carrington has rejected the PF proposals as “too complicated”.

He said that while he had not presented them an ultimatum yesterday, there was “a limited room for manoeuvre” after a fortnight of extensive debate on the transition. He hoped shortly to move on to discussing the ceasefire.

The detailed British proposals provide for:

A caretaker governor to be appointed by an order in Council in the British Parliament with executive and legislative authority in Zimbabwe Rhodesia.

A deputy governor and military, police, legal and political advisers and supporting staff.

The release of political detainees by both sides.

Zimbabwe Rhodesia’s return to legality once the governor has been installed in Salisbury.

The governor’s departure’s to Salisbury “as soon as possible after the conclusion” of the Lancaster House talks.

Martial law will be lifted and the existing Police, under the governor’s supervision, will handle maintenance of law and order.

Special arrangements will be made for the security of the political leaders during electioneering.

The document contains no departures from the original plan.

Our political reporter writes that Dr Eddison Zvobgo, said last night the Patriotic Front would reopen negotiations with Britain if it was not satisfied with some elements of Whitehall’s refined proposals for implementing independence constitution.

He said the PF would continue to negotiate until satisfied that conditions for free and fair elections would prevail in the country during the proposed fresh Commonwealth-observed elections.

When that was achieved, he added, the PF would return to the country and “we will walk over in that election and beat everybody”.

Mr Zvobgo was interviewed when he telephoned The Herald last night to denounce the formation by Mr Michael Mawema, whom he said was his cousin, of the National Front for Zimbabwe.

LESSONS FOR TODAY

The Lancaster House constitution, a negotiated document, was Zimbabwe’s first constitution.

In 1999, following the formation of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, there were attempts to write and pass a home-grown constitution. Although there were wide consultations with the generality of the population, the draft was rejected in a referendum.

Notwithstanding, the rejection of the draft constitution, the British and American governments never realised that the people were going to reclaim their land in what was popularly known as the Third Chimurenga/Imvukela/Revolution, or simply, land reform programme.

Experts from different political parties and civic organisations drafted another constitutional document, which was widely accepted in a referendum held in 2013.

Although the constitution is there and has made it very clear that the land reform programme is irreversible, there are hundreds of laws that need to be aligned with the constitution. This is a costly exercise, but it has to be done through consultation with the people.

Similar to what happened after the Lancaster House constitution was passed, there was need for the various stakeholders to consult their constituents, without fear or favour. The awareness campaign makes people understand since the constitution is a legal document.

If translated into the various local languages, the translators must be accurate.

People must be able to easily access the constitution and Acts of Parliament on the different multimedia platforms, in languages of their choice.