Tag: H.E. Robert Mugabe
Super-President Mugabe will reign in the votes even after his death!

“Even when Mugabe dies, we will vote for his corpse and it will win an election” – Grace Mugabe, 17.02.17, 2:06pm” (Patson Dzmara, 17.02.2017).
Well, for me this isn’t surprising, as the Vice-President Phelekezela Mphoko and others has claimed that President Robert Mugabe is biblical and has to rule for eternity. That eternity is damn long, its decades upon decade, which makes the Lancaster House agreement of 1980s seems like small fry and the Ian Smith regime like a token of misjudgement. Since President Mugabe will now extend his rule beyond the grave.
The citizens of Zimbabwe will pay their respects with giving him the votes when he has even caught his last breath and eaten his last meal. When his body is so deep into dirt and vanishing inch by inch six feet under, the public will still drop ballots in his honour. The power of Mugabe is so strong that his earthly remains will not stop the Zimbabweans from showing their political will and to stand behind his Zanu-PF banner.
President Mugabe, the former freedom fighter will control his people beyond his grave and with the codes of elections through the same electorate. This is wishes of his beloved wife Grace Mugabe, which the power beholden to Mugabe is now so strong and powerful that it will sway people to vote for him even when the heartbeat of the brother has stopped.
So even if the President Mugabe pump isn’t working, he has no pulse, no breath or even walking; he will still have the ability to get the Zimbabweans to show loyalty and his party. The Zanu-PF must be rudderless and be without a proper head if the man they have as leader will be dead and gone. Mugabe should be a memory and legacy of the Zimbabwean nation. Not a figure, not a man who would extend his reign beyond his life.
Zimbabwe must have one brother or sister who is able to sway voters after the demise and last breath of President Mugabe. There are certainly somebody else who has the ability to gain the popularity and the righteous reign after the Zanu-PF head-honcho of decades upon decades should leave a new leader behind. That is certainly something the First Lady of Zimbabwe doesn’t believe in.
That Zanu-PF leadership, the Zanu-PF Youth League and all the other political leaders must feel left behind, when the corpse and the legacy of the long-serving president Mugabe can win and run elections from his place in graveyard. So politically Grace Mugabe must see the Zanu-PF as a total dead party. With that meaning that nobody else should run than a dead man. That means the internal or primary elections are pointless, as no matter who would run for being flag-bearer is not necessary since the man is already handpicked.
So who need democracy and elections when the dead is still ruling, Grace must fear for herself and her riches, when she depends on the Presidents executive position; that must be most important reason for her will to belief that the citizens still will elect her husband after his demise. Certainly, there should be others who could pick his mantle and continue where he left off?
I feel sorry for the other who are in the party of President Mugabe; they can’t even compete with the biblical and have the ability to roam the nation. The future leaders and the ones coming after must feel passed over. The youth and the ones in Zanu-PF must feel like they are walked over. Certainly, it must hurt that they are double-crossed by a deceased, not a loyalist to Mugabe even. They will not match up to the dead man. Mugabe, even in death surpasses the living in skill, expertise and the vision to give anyone else the possibility to run. So with this in mind, the President and Mugabe will by all means not rest in peace. He will reign in turbulence and let his soul roam the nation, even after his passing. Peace.
Footage: Evan Mawarire update from Courts earlier today (17.02.2017)
“Update from the courts earlier today. Matter has been postponed to March 16 because the state was not ready. Our resolve remains steady in uniting the citizens of Zimbabwe as we prepare for the coming season of change. #ThisFlag” (Evan Mawarire, 17.02.2017)
Reserve Bank Gov. Mangudya says the economy of Zimbabwe is an ‘albatross’!

The Governor Dr. J.P. Mangudya Zimbabwean Reserve Bank writes a special piece on the Zimbabwean economy, not as bleak as the one Finance Minister P.A. Chinamasa wrote in mid-year report of 2016. The Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), of January of 2017, as still evident of the issues in the Zimbabwean economy. With the knowledge of the debt-burden that has arisen together with the suspended international loans, the state funds has funds dwindled. Also, the monetary and fiscal prudence has been weakening as told by the governor of the Reserve Bank. The Governor even called the Zimbabwean Economy an “albatross”, the rest of it says it all.
Zimbabwean economy needs to catch up:
“The positive spin-offs from the recent removal of Zimbabwe from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remedial measures, following successful clearance of its arrears to the Fund in October 2016, are also expected to go a long way in reducing Zimbabwe’s country risk, thus attracting the much needed foreign investment. Completion of the clearance of external debt arrears to the rest of the international financial institutions – African Development Bank (AfDB), World Bank and European Investment Bank (EIB) – is expected to further reduce the country’s debt burden that continues to be an albatross on Zimbabwe’s access to foreign finance for the past 16 years now at a time when other emerging markets have been making tremendous strides in their economic transformation. As a consequence, Zimbabwe has lagged behind and needs to catch up with its peers” (Mangudya, P: 6-7, 2017).
Reactions to drought:
“In 2016, food imports (maize and wheat), however, surged owing to the El Nino induced drought that destroyed crops in the Southern African region, including Zimbabwe. Continued reliance on imports of finished goods is unsustainable as it undermines current efforts to resuscitate domestic industrial production, leading to significant trade and current account deficits” (Mangudya, P: 15, 2017).
Other key development:
“Driven by merchandise trade developments, the current account deficit is estimated to have narrowed down by about 15.5%, from a deficit of US$1,519.4 million in 2015, to a deficit of US$1,283.9 million in 2016, partly on account of the projected decline in the import bill. Remittances, which are also a major source of import financing declined by 17.9% in 2016, from US$1,917.7 million received in 2015 to US$1,574.0 million in 2016. Of the total amount received in 2016, US$779.0 million reflects remittances from the Diaspora while remittances from International Organizations (NGOs) amounted to US$795.0 million” (Mangudya, P: 16, 2017).
Problematic government loans:
“Reflecting developments on both the current and capital account, the overall balance of payments position is estimated to have deteriorated from a deficit of US$25.8 million in 2015 to a deficit of US$186.4 million in 2016. This phenomenon reflects an unsustainable economic situation of funding capital projects using loans as opposed to equity. The danger with this scenario is that debt would become unsustainable as exports are mortgaged towards debt repayments” (Mangudya, P: 19-20, 2017).
Unbalanced economy:
“The fact that the 14.4% of the country’s foreign receipts handled by RBZ for redistribution into the market seems to have more impact in the economy is a sign of market failure. The Bank shall quickly move to redress this market failure through measures that compel banks to adhere to the import priority list and to mitigate against institutional indiscipline such as the use of more foreign exchange for personal card and DSTV transactions ahead of raw materials to produce cooking oil, for example. Financial institutions should do some soul searching and rethink on how they add value to the economy under the New Normal” (Mangudya, P: 67, 2017).
Bond- Notes introduction:
“The Bank is encouraged by the manner in which the nation embraced bond notes. The Bank has to date issued $94 million of bond notes into the market against an aggregate value of the export incentive of $107 million. Whilst the circulation of the bond notes represented by levels of deposits and withdrawals is also encouraging, the Bank is putting in place a redistributable measure that mitigates against skewed concentration of bond notes within the banking sector by limiting the maximum amount of bond notes that each bank should hold at any given point in time in relation to its level and type of transactions. This measure is necessary to ensure that bonds notes are distributed proportionately according to the customer base or customer profile of each banking institution” (…) “The Bank is directing financial institutions to strictly observe the policy to deposit bond notes into the US$ accounts without requesting the banking public to differentiate between bond notes and US$ cash. This measure is essential to ensure that bond notes continue to trade at parity with the US$ and to reflect the fact that bond notes are supported by the US$200 million offshore facility to support the demand for foreign exchange attributable to bond notes” (Mangudya, P: 67-68, 2017).
When you see this numbers alone, there would be more meat in the report that says lots of the downfalls of the economy. The Governor said the fiscal issues and debt, together with the lacking of imports and exports, the short and less infused funds. With that in mind, instead of pounding on the troubled economy, we should rather enjoy a moment of explanation of why albatross is so dire:
“something or someone you want to be free from because that thing or person is causing you problems” (Cambridge Dictionary) and this one too: “a continuing problem that makes it difficult or impossible to do or achieve something” (Merriam Webster Dictionary). So the Albatross for the Zanu-PF is the economy, even as they eat of it and deplete it. However, the turbulence and insecurity isn’t over as the trust in the Bond-Notes or the other factors as the New Normal isn’t giving. Peace.
Reference:
Dr. J.P. Mangudya – ‘“Stimulating Economic Growth and Bolstering Confidence”’ – Monetary Policy Statement, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ)
#ThisFlag: Interview with Dr. Edgar Munatsi before their strike (Youtube-Clip)
Zimbabwe: Urgent Notice- “To: Zimbabwe Hosptial Doctors Association Members” (10.02.2017)


ZimPF National Executive Council ratifies expulsion (10.02.2017)


#ThisFlag: Evan Mawarire – “I’m so glad to be back home in Zimbabwe where I belong” (Footage)
“Thank you for your support and for speaking out for Zimbabwe. None of us should ever be intimidated into silence. This is our home and we have the full right to participate in making it a better country. Like we said in the beginning, HATICHADA, HATICHATYA! ASISESABI njalo ASISAFUNI! FED UP & NOT AFRAID!” (Mawarire, 10.02.2017)
#ThisFlag: “Free at Last to the sound of lying ministers!” (09.02.2017)

Leaked UN Monitoring briefing showing lack of oversight in dozens of nations on communication surveillance!

As noted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
“a lack of effective oversight has contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful intrusions on the right to privacy in the digital environment. Internal safeguards without independent, external monitoring in particular have proven ineffective against unlawful or arbitrary surveillance methods. While these safeguards may take a variety of forms, the involvement of all branches of government in the oversight of surveillance programmes, as well as of an independent civilian oversight agency, is essential to ensure the effective protection of the law.” (United Nations, P: 2, 2016).
This here is evident that State and Government uses their force with their communication surveillance without transparent or use of the legal aide to gain data on their own citizens and also their communications. That means the data and meta-data we leave behind can be stored and checked by the security agencies, where they can surveillance and follow us to secure that we are not misusing or contacting wrong people. This can indirectly make people guilty before conducting crimes. The Police and Security Agencies than can follow and investigate without warrants or court-orders citizens without any jurisdiction. Therefore the real big-brother can follow all communication and use this as evidence of conspiracy and criminal intent if needed be. This information can again be delivered in reports to Central Government that will again take the whole groups of people as a den of thieves instead of activist and political opposition.
This sort of work can and will often cross the belief of a difference between a private and public sphere. Where the communications between citizens can be taken into account in investigations and that is done without knowledge of the citizens. So with that in mind, the United Nation Special Rapporteur on the rights of pricy briefing from November 2016 is telling stories on how this is done in dozens of nations. Their stories are not peaceful and the possible interference shows how their own citizens are shadowed by their own government. Just take a look!
Rwanda:
“In Rwanda, interception warrants are issued by a prosecutor designed by the Minister of Justice. As such there is no requirement of prior judicial authorisation. Nor there seems to be independent judicial oversight on the application of the law: the only monitoring envisaged is by inspectors appointed by Presidential Order. The Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the law “permits the interception of communications without prior authorization of a judge” and recommended, inter alia, that the State party “ensure the effectiveness and independence of a monitoring system for such interception, in particular by providing for the judiciary to take part in the authorization and monitoring of the interception.” (United Nations, P: 3-4, 2016).
Zimbabwe:
“In Zimbabwe, the Interception of Communications Act allows senior officials to individually make applications for warrants of interception. The applications are submitted to the Minister of Transport and Communications or “any other Minister to whom the President may from time to time assign the administration of [the] act”. Under the Act, the Minister is the sole arbiter of whether the grounds for a warrant are met and determines the warrant’s duration, up to a period of three months (after which renewal requires the authorisation of an administrative court.) In 2014, using powers granted to him under the constitution, President Mugabe assigned the Act’s administration to the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC). There is no public information on how these functions are exercised in practice within the OPC, which is an executive body led by the President and the Head of the Civil Service” (United Nations, P: 4, 2016). “In Zimbabwe, the only oversight of the warrant regime comes from Prosecutor-General, but there is secrecy surrounding the process. The Prosecutor-General receives an annual summary from the Minister detailing “the particulars of every warrant which, during that calendar year, was issued by him or her but not renewed.” However, this information is not made public in any form. The Prosecutor-General can also request additional information from the Minister and make binding recommendations to the Minister; however, these recommendations are not public. There is no additional mechanism for independent parliamentary or judicial oversight of the regime as a whole” (United Nations, P: 12, 2016).
New Zealand:
“In New Zealand, there is no judicial prior authorisation for interception of communications or access to communications infrastructures. Instead the relevant warrant is authorised by the Minister. The Commissioner of Security Warrants, a retired judge, is only required to jointly authorise interception warrants when the communications of New Zealanders may be intercepted. Reflecting on this, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern “about the limited judicial authorization process for the interception of communications of New Zealanders and the total absence of such authorization for the interception of communications of non-New Zealanders” (United Nations, P: 4, 2016).
United Kingdom:
“Similarly in the United Kindgom, under the current RIPA there is no requirement for, or process enabling, the prior independent authorisation of the interception of communications. Instead, a Government minister issues warrants without reference to any judicial or other independent authority. There is only qualified provision for judicial authorisation under RIPA for intrusive surveillance by police (but, notably, not the intelligence services), with regards to requests for encryption keys, and when local authorities seek access to communications data” (United Nations, P: 5, 2016). “In the United Kingdom, there are concerns about the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC lacks sufficient independence from the government: the Prime Minister has sole power to nominate MPs to the ISC. She also has power to veto publication of any material by the ISC. For these reasons, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights expressed “concern that the executive control of this Committee may be too strong” (United Nations, P: 10, 2016).
Venezuela:
“In Venezuela, for example, although the decision to authorise communications surveillance is made by a judge, judges – particularly first instance judges who are often employed on temporary contracts – frequently lack independence and impartiality” (United Nations, P: 5, 2016).
Russia:
“Considering the interception regime in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights noted that while interceptions may be authorized by a judge, there was no effective oversight, in particular in light of the lack “publicly available regulations or instructions describing the scope of their review, the conditions under which it may be carried out, the procedures for reviewing the surveillance measures or for remedying the breaches detected” (United Nations, P: 6, 2016).
Poland:
“In Poland, there is no ex-ante review system for metadata collection, only a general ex-post requirement of submission once every six months of a generalized metadata report to a competent district court. Further, certain metadata information does not even require the ex-post review” (United Nations, P: 6, 2016)
Mexico:
“In Mexico. Articles 189 and 190 of the “Ley Telecom” impose a two year data retention requirements on telecommunications providers, requiring them to keep their users communications data. There is no judicial warrant requirement for accessing the metadata, and that includes in particular no judicial authorisation for mobile phone location tracking (which can be done in real time)” (United Nations, P: 8, 2016).
Morocco:
“In Morocco, there are at least eight government agencies that can potentially monitor communications. These services operate in near complete opacity. The Human Rights Committee expressed concerned at the lack of clarity regarding the law authorising and regulating the activity of such services and the lack of monitoring mechanisms” (United Nations, P: 9, 2016).
Uganda:
“In Uganda, despite increasing significantly the surveillance powers, there is no clear oversight mechanism under the 2010 Regulation of Interception of Communications Act or the 2015 Anti-Terrorism (Amended) Act in Uganda. None of the intelligence agencies with the power to conduct surveillance under these acts are subject to independent oversight however they all report to the President. Any reporting that may be conduced by the agencies to the President is not made public” (United Nations, P: 9, 2016).
Macedonia:
“In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM), long-standing concerns on the lack of effective supervision and control of the activities of the Macedonian Security and Counter Intelligence Service (UBK) to limit unlawful interference with the privacy of personal communications were brought into sharp focus in 2015, following the revelation that over 20,000 persons, including political figures, members of non-governmental organisations and journalists, were subjected to communication surveillance. The only body authorised to supervise the work of the UBK is a Parliamentary Commission. According to media reports, the UBK’s written reports to the Commission contained no data on the agency’s use of what are called “specific investigative measures”, such as eavesdropping” (United Nations, P: 10, 2016).

These stories give insight into how far the breaches are and how they are done in each country. Certain intelligence that are collected unfairly from the citizens and without permission, not even with court orders and put into structures that can be recollected by the ones who have been followed; this has been in secrecy and with knowledge even from the person with the most power. Those Presidents can interfere and collect this intelligence without having court orders or a warrant says a lot of their breaches of power and how they value the private communication. When they of using technology and using the interception of communication between people to find intelligence and collect their meta-data for later see the pattern of behaviour.
This shows how the National Security is using the private communication into collecting evidence and pattern of behaviour where they can oversee society and use this to detain and arrest dissidents. What is also worrying is in the power of the Executive and the Central Government who can easily access and take the collected data without the need of the Courts or legislative branches. Therefore this can be done in the dark and they can do this without consent or have any accountability for their work as they use surveillance to follow their own citizens.
This is just a few of the nations of the world. There are certainly more intelligence gathered without knowledge and where the UN Special Rapporteur has gotten know-how of. This briefing is only skimming the surface of what’s apparently going on. We as citizens should at least ask our own government to comply with freedoms and liberty, only use these technologies to incept meta-data and communications between people when courts and real National Security is at risk. Not just when they can, but when it is fit. If not then innocent people are followed without any concern and without any justice delivered. Peace.
Reference:
United Nation – ‘Briefing to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy – Monitoring and Oversight of Communications Surveillance’ (November 2016)

