X hits on this document

Word document






59 / 60

CL/175/11(a)-R.2- 57 -

Geneva, 1st October 2004

this case, progress has been made in the investigations. However, the complainant has not been able to positively identify the accused persons.

1.14.3.Attacks on Mr. Sikhala’s house

The police memorandum of April 2004 provides information on an attack of 5 February 2001 on Mr. Sikhala’s house during which his wife, Ellen Sikhala was assaulted and sustained injuries.  The investigation produced no result.  Police observed that in May 2000, the front and rear windscreens of his vehicle had been smashed.  Mr. Sikhala himself suspected an MDC member of being the perpetrator because of a feud within the MDC provincial hierarchy.  The person was detained and released for insufficient evidence.  

Report:  Housebreaking with intent to assault and assault

For the record, the complainant in this matter is not Job Sikhala but Ellen Sikhala, the wife of Job Sikhala.


On 5 February 2001, at about 04:00 hours at house number 2884 St. Mary's Chitungwiza, some unknown male assailants arrived and knocked at the house.  Complainant refused to open the door but they broke the door and entered into the house. They then assaulted complainant Ellen Sikhala and she sustained some injuries. Ellen made a report at St. Mary's police station and investigations were instituted but with negative results as complainant could not identify the assailants.  St. Mary's CR 86/02/01 refers. The docket was closed incomplete ‘A’ 806/01.


This is not the only incident in which property belonging to Sikhala was damaged. On May 23, 2000 at about 21:00hrs Job Sikhala was at his home when he heard some noise outside. When he got out he discovered that the front and rear screens of his vehicle had been destroyed.  Value of damage was put at $ l0,000. Sikhala suspected another MDC member Eriya Nyamaparwa of 1632 St. Mary’s because of a feud within the MDC provincial hierarchy. Nyamaparwa was detained under DB 1236/00 but was later released for insufficient evidence.

PGHQ - July 1, 2004

2.Oral observations made by Mr. Patrick Chinamasa, MP, Minister for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs at the hearing held with the Committee on the occasion of the 111th IPU Assembly (September 2004)

Minister Chinamasa stated that, as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Zimbabwe deserved to be treated fairly and objectively.  That was not the case in the present instance.  The report, he said, was biased and in favour of the perpetrators of violence against those who sought to uphold the rule of law.  The report failed to recognise and acknowledge the political history of Zimbabwe, the fact that it had had to fight to gain human rights and access to its resources.  The report failed to take account of the environment in which the Government had to operate.  The former colonial power was trying to effect a regime change and to create a crisis in the country to that end.  Prime Minister Blair had recently acknowledged publicly that the United Kingdom was seeking to effect a regime change through the MDC.  The report should have appreciated that and not have overlooked all that had happened in the past.  The report also represented allegations as facts.  It insinuated that torture was State-sponsored, which was absolutely untrue.  Allegations of maltreatment against police officers were investigated and those found responsible for such acts brought to justice.  In short, the Zimbabwe Government had been unfairly treated in the report.  


With respect to the observations of the Police Headquarters on certain individual cases that no complaint had been filed or that the police station where the complaint had been filed should have been specified, Ms. Thokozani Khupe stated that MPs would usually lodge a complaint with their district police

Document info
Document views210
Page views208
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 20:50:27 UTC 2017