1. Introduction
The Police Service is an important arm of the government, charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives and property of people, criminal investigations, and maintaining law and order. Of all governmental functions, the policing function is arguably the most visible and the most immediate, and the most intimately involved function with the well-being of individuals in communities (
Skolnick 1999, p. 7). Regardless of the situations in which the police find themselves in, it is their duty to execute their powers and functions in accordance with the law, and with due respect to fundamental human rights. However, the vast powers that have been bestowed upon the police have created a breeding ground for police abuse of powers and functions. Most of the police powers, which are not available to ordinary citizens, have a bearing on the fundamental rights of citizens. These powers are clearly outlined in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, Chapter 9:07 (
Republic of Zimbabwe 1980). The grounds on which to exercise these powers, as well as the limits of these powers, are also outlined in this Act. The powers have to be exercised within the prescribed limits of the law, for the purpose of law enforcement and with due respect to the fundamental human rights. Abuse of these police powers and functions takes various forms such as unlawful arrests; unlawful methods of investigation, police torture, indiscriminate use of excessive force, and ill-treatment of persons in police custody.
More often, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (Z.R.P) has had to contend with allegations of unlawful arrests, excessive use of force, and partisan policing, and this could be a possible indication of the questionable execution of the powers they possess. Zimbabwe is a developing country located in Southern Africa. The Z.R.P is a centrally controlled police organisation, with its headquarters in the capital city, Harare, and is headed by the Commissioner General of Police. The organisation is established in terms of Section 219 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which provides that; “There is a police service which is responsible for (a) Detecting, investigating and preventing crime; (b) Preserving the internal security of Zimbabwe; (c) Protecting and securing the lives and property of the people; (d) Maintaining Law and Order; and (e) Upholding this constitution and enforcing the law without fear or favour” (
Republic of Zimbabwe 2013a). The policing landscape in Zimbabwe was shaped by the colonial legacy. Zimbabwe attained her independence from British colonial rule in 1980. Prior to independence, policing was mainly done within the purview of fighting terrorism and insurgency, and a state of emergency had been proclaimed since 1965.
Chihuri (
2015) notes that, as a result of the state of emergency and the threat of terrorism, there were serious human rights violations by the police in the pre-independence era. It is important to highlight that the state of emergency continued for more than a decade after independence (
Chihuri 2015). Colonial legacies and political turmoil post-independence continue to affect the relationship between the police and the public. Our findings provide a critical evaluation of the implications of the police abuse of power on the well-being of citizens and their perception of police.
2. International and National Laws Pertinent to Human Rights Violations
In order to prevent police abuse of power, several treaties and conventions have been signed on the global and regional scale. The most notable treaties are the Universal Declaration Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the Convention against Torture (CAT), and the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. Moreover, most of the important provisions of the international treaties and conventions have been incorporated into the country’s domestic laws. To this end, any act of abuse of power by the police in Zimbabwe will have international ramifications.
Much of the human rights violations emanate from unlawful arrests, and an unlawful arrest happens when the police, without lawful justification, restrain the liberty of citizens during arrest and imprisonment (
Feltoe 2012, p. 90). Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) clearly outlaws illegal arrest when it provides that “everyone has the right to liberty and security of a person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as established by law”. Police should therefore never infringe on the citizens right to personal liberty through unlawful arrest. On the regional front, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights outlaws unlawful arrest in Article 6, which provides that “every individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person. No one may be deprived of his freedom except for reasons laid down by law. In particular, no one may be arbitrarily arrested or detained”. These important provisions have also been incorporated into the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Specifically, section 49 of the constitution provides that every person has a right not to be detained without trial and the right not to be deprived of their liberty arbitrarily without just cause.
Several far-reaching judgements have been passed by the Zimbabwean Courts in relation to the abuse of the right to personal liberty through unlawful arrest. In the case of Allan v Minister of Home Affairs and Another , in which the plaintiff had sued the police of unlawful arrest, it was held that “…it is essential for any person entrusted with the power of arrest to exercise the power only in cases of urgency and necessity” (
Republic of Zimbabwe 1985). Similarly, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe summed up the importance of the right to personal liberty in the case of Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Bangajena
, where it was stated that “the deprivation of personal liberty is an odious interference and has always been regarded as serious injury” (
Republic of Zimbabwe 2000a).
Torture is also a particularly serious violation of human rights and is strictly prohibited by international law in the following instruments, among others: the UDHR, ICCPR, the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and the CAT. Article 1 of the CAT defines torture as follows: “Any act by which severe pain or suffering whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected to have committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official or other person acting on an official capacity” (United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (
United Nations 1984)). The definition of torture is all-encompassing and includes assault of suspects and several other methods used to unlawfully obtain confessions from suspects. Supporting the view for the abolition of torture,
Jessberger (
2005, p. 1063) suggests that the dignity of the human being is inviolable under any circumstances, and torture is the most severe violation of human dignity. Malaba, J. summed it up in the case of Mapuranga v Mungate when he said, “every person’s body is however sacred and inviolable. No other man has a right to meddle with it in the slightest manner except in the circumstances prescribed by the law. The person assaulted is entitled to damages even though he suffered no severe pain or any damage at all other than the insult of having his bodily integrity interfered with” (
Republic of Zimbabwe 1997a).
In the case of Karimazondo and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another, (
Republic of Zimbabwe 2001) the plaintiffs were both arrested on allegations of murder but the charges were subsequently dropped. The plaintiffs were subjected to torture whilst in custody and they suffered long-lasting physical and psychological effects. The learned judge said, “the actions of the police, in this case, were in flagrant and disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs … the brutality and callousness with which the assaults were perpetrated on the first plaintiff instils in any right-thinking person a sense of horror and shock … The unlawful and inhuman treatment to which the first plaintiff was subjected was, in my view totally unnecessary, vindictive and malicious.” In the Karimazondo case above, it was ironical that the first plaintiff was a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police whilst the second plaintiff was his wife. One may infer that the torture could have been worse had they not been dealing with one of their own.
Abuse of police power can also manifest through indiscriminate use of excessive force and firearms. The constitutional duty of preserving peace and maintaining law and order sometimes necessitates the use of force. Article 3 of the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (UNCCLEO) provides that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duties. To this end, use of force by the police should be guided by the three principles, namely, legality, proportionality, and necessity. The Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Cooperation (SARPCCO) Code of Conduct also spells out a minimum set of standards for policing standards in the Southern African Region, and an important consideration among these standards is the management of police use of force. The provisions of the UNCCLEO and the SARPCCO Code of Conduct have been incorporated in the Z.R.P’s public order strategy. Whilst inclusion of the provisions is a positive step, there could be challenges to implementation. There are situations, however, in which police have used excessive force, sometimes resulting in the loss of innocent lives. In 1998, seven people lost their lives as the Z.R.P tried to deal with nationwide food riots that had gripped Zimbabwe (
Chinaka 2000). In the year 2000, thirteen human lives were lost during a football match when police officers fired tear smoke into a restive stadium crowd (
Vhiriri 2011). In 2012, one person died whilst others sustained serious injuries when police in Shamva assaulted residents after a suspected case of theft (
Kachere 2012). All these incidences point to the excessive use of force by the police with far-reaching consequences.
A decided case which highlights the unwarranted use of firearms is that of Musadzikwa v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (
Republic of Zimbabwe 2000b). In this case, police had used automatic weapons to quell a riot and an innocent passer-by was injured in the process. The court found that it was not conducive to harmonious community relations for the police force to unleash its members onto an urban shopping centre located in a centre of a densely suburban residential area armed with FN rifles (A Light Automatic Rifle and a battle rifle designed by Belgian small armsdesigners Dieudonné Saive and Ernest Vervier and manufactured by FN Herstal). The court also highlighted that whilst police were entitled to use force and firearms to disperse the rioters, it was unreasonable to use FN rifles and so they were liable.
Another manifestation of abuse of police power is the ill-treatment of persons in police custody. Persons in police custody should be treated in a humane manner as they are considered to be innocent until proven guilty by competent courts of law. On the international arena, the Body of Principles for the Protection of Persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment prohibits the torture of persons under detention and also provides for the detainees’ rights to humane treatment. Importantly, Section 50 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for the rights of detained persons. Amongst the constitutional rights relating to detained persons are the 48 h limit for the period of detention; the right to consult a legal practitioner, medical practitioner and relatives; and the right to be informed of the reason of arrest at the time of arrest.
Despite the relevant legal provisions, the Z.R.P has had to contend with allegations of the ill-treatment of detained persons. For example, according to the
Human Rights Watch (
2008, p. 2), police detain accused persons beyond the forty-eight-hour statutory limit, show contempt for court proceedings and frequently deny detainees access to legal representation or relatives. In their report on policing in Zimbabwe, The International Bar Association Human Rights Institute (
International Bar Association 2007) highlighted that police routinely disregard basic rights of detainees, such as the free access for detainees to their lawyers, access to family members, medical personnel, and courts. All these actions are manifestations of police abuse of power. Whilst these allegations were more pronounced before the promulgation of the new constitution in 2013, there seems to be an improvement in the way in which the police handles detained persons. This could possibly be due to the inclusion of specific rights of accused persons in the new constitution. Despite the improvement, the
Zimbabwe Human Rights Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Forum (
2015) notes that the police have, on several occasions, arbitrarily detained human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists in the absence of reasonable suspicion.
3. Study Aim and Implications
Given the important role that the police play in the wellbeing of the citizens, it is important to analyse the nature of the relationship that exists between the police and the public. Where such relationship is strained, chiefly due to police excesses, there is a need for critical evaluation of the implications of police excesses upon the citizens. Such critical evaluation necessitates the adoption of correct prescriptive measures to deal with police excesses. To this end, this study sought to: (1) assess the implications of police abuse of power; (2) to explore the current internal mechanisms for dealing with incidents of police abuse of powers and functions; and (3) to recommend appropriate prescriptive measures to deal with police abuse of power. Key findings to this study reveal that the police abuse of power has a significant impact on police public relations, with the loss of respect for the police, withdrawal of public support, fear of the police and the loss of lives or injuries to innocent civilians topping the list of implications of police abuse. Civil suits against the police, with both cost and image implications on the police organisation, is also another notable implication. Whilst the police organisation has internal mechanisms to deal with incidents of police misconduct, the mechanisms seem inadequate, chiefly due to a lack of transparency. Training and decisiveness in dealing with implicated police officers are among the significant measures that were recommended by the respondents.
Whilst the data was gathered during a period when the political environment was polarised, and when allegations of police abuse of power were more pronounced, the findings will help to shape police policy in the new political dispensation. The thrust of the new administration in Zimbabwe is to improve the police public relations, which is widely viewed to have been strained due to the police excesses that characterised the previous administration.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Population, Sample and Data Collection
The sample population integrated members of the public from diverse professional backgrounds ranging from education, other government departments, legal field, farmers, transport operators, and non-governmental organisations. They were drawn from two policing districts, namely, Bindura and Mount Darwin, the former being an urban police district while the latter is a rural police district. A total of 83 members of the public participated, out of which 73 provided data through completion of the questionnaire, while an in-depth interview was conducted on the other 10 respondents. A sample of 8 police officers was invited to provide data through in-depth interviews. A close-ended questionnaire was used. Respondents were asked on the level of impact of police abuse of powers and they were asked to indicate on a scale which had three labels, namely, no impact, lesser impact and greater impact. Respondents were also asked to rate the police service in terms of quality and they responded by ticking on a scale which ranged from very poor to very good. Respondents were also asked to rate strategies that were provided by the researcher and they indicated their response on a scale which had labels 1 to 5, denoting least effective to most effective, respectively. Quantitative data from the questionnaire were fed into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 for analysis, and where appropriate the data was further summarised. A semi-structured interview guide was used with the aim of obtaining information on the effects of the police abuse of power, as well as the possible remedies. Depending on the background of the respondents, further probing was done where necessary. Useful information was also obtained from various articles on policing and abuse of power. Relevant case law was also looked at to show how police misconduct was handled by the courts of law. Data for this paper was generated within a span of two years (2013–2014) when the main interviews were conducted. Further, follow up short time research visits to the study locations were undertaken in 2015, 2016, and 2017 to update the data where necessary. These visits helped the researchers in obtaining more clarifications on the subject matter and cleaning the data, especially the qualitative aspect. All the required data used for this paper were fully collected and analysed before the fall of the Robert Mugabe government in 2017. The analysis contained in the study is therefore limited to the period before the present regime headed by Mr Emmerson Mnangagwa.
4.2. Ethical Consideration
Even though this research was community-based study, rather than an institutional one, the researchers ensured that all the protocols were observed before the commencement of data collection. The researchers gained entry into the population with an introduction letter from the university department (supervisor), which clearly indicated the purpose of the data collection as a purely research and academic exercise. All participants were asked to declare their willingness to participate voluntarily with an absolute right to withdraw from the process at any point in time if they wish. Respondents were also assured of the confidentiality of their data and, in this regard, no names would appear on both the questionnaires and the in-depth interview responses booklet. All the sources that were cited by the researcher were acknowledged within the text and in the list of references. All respondents took part in this study based on their individual capacities as adults of sound mind from whom the researchers obtained consent before commencement of the interviews.
4.3. Study Limitations
The major limitation of this study lies in the small population sample. Findings from a sample of 83 respondents from two policing district may not be reflective of the general views of the majority of Zimbabweans. The small sample could be attributed to the polarised political environment that characterised the period before the new political dispensation, wherein citizens were not free to criticise key government arms such as the police. Moreover, the majority of the police officers were not willing to participate in this study for fear of possible persecution. For the few police officers who were willing to participate in this study, the majority of them were defending police actions, which could have negatively affected objectivity. However, despite these limitations, this study highlights the challenge of human rights violations in Zimbabwe, an area which has not been widely studied.