White man tastes village justice

Press, 5 March 1982, Page 16

White man tastes village justice

From

STEPHEN TAYLOR,

in Salisbury.

Under leaden skies the village court official and two elders sat listening as the Zimbabwean worker unfolded a complaint against his employer, a white farmer. With more than 2000 people gathered around on a football pitch, they heard the man describe how his wife’s adultery with the farmer — an apparently casual affair in a plantation — had affected his standing in the community which required redress. Asked for his version, the fanner, a weatherbeaten man of 64, admitted his guilt but said that according to his understanding of tribal custom he owed his employee no more than an apology. Informed by the MakuruDare, or presiding officer, of the seriousness of adultery he agreed to negotiate over damages. The husband demanded almost $5OOO and accepted $7OO. The farmer

left, relieved that the ordeal was over. The case of the farmer, William Munson, in the farming community of Norton, south-west of Salisbury, is a vivid example of Zimbabwe’s new legal system — a unique integration of Roman-Dutch and African customary laws. The system came into effect almost a year ago under the Customary Law Bill, which gave legal status to the tribal framework for matters relating to land, property, marriage and succession. The Munson case was the first in which a white has been arraigned on a sexual matter although a number of whites have previously been ordered to pay damages for owning dogs which attacked blacks. African custom is a vital part of the fabric of rural, life 'where-60 per cent of Zimbabwe’s population lives. Arbitration in, for example, a witchcraft case in which a

family had been accused of putting a spell on others in the village, was in the past left to chiefs and white district commissioners.

Other cases might involve disputes over land or livestock. Because chiefs often assessed cases involving their relatives, and because litigants had to pay a fee for a hearing, the system was open to abuse.

The place of tribal chiefs as adjudicators has been taken largely by political elements installed by the guerrilla forces during the independence war. At first their objective was to locate and try people suspected of giving information to the security forces, but since the

ceasefire they have continued to dispense rough justice in their rural communities.

The Justice Ministry plans to replace these “kangaroo courts” with a two-tiered system of primary courts. About 2000 village courts of the kind which considered the Munson case are to be set up. Presiding officers at the village courts, the Makuru Dare, are chosen from the community and receive no legal training. Their jurisdiction is limited to civil cases where the claim does not exceed $250 — a fact apparently forgotten by the officialin Norton who awarded damages agreed by Munson of $7OO.

The farmer intends to appeal against the order and will take his case to a community court, the next stage set up in the system, which are presided over by Vatongi — officers with no limit in civil jurisdiction and who may also try minor cases of theft and assault and impose fines of up to $5O. So far 40 Vatongi have been produced at six-week training courses and another 40 are undergoing instruction.

Munson is not happy with the new system — “I am sure it would have been more orderly if it had been conducted by a chief,” he said afterwards. But if he is still displeased with the ruling at the next level he can take the case to a magistrates’ court and, in 'theory at least, the case could go all the way to the Court of Appeal. — Copyright, London Observer Service.