Application for arrest warrant and extradition order.
Bow Street Magistrate’s Court, London, 10am, Wednesday 7 January 2004.
Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, is applying for a warrant for the arrest and extradition of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, on charges of torture under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
His legal case against Mugabe begins in Bow Street Magistrate’s Court at 10am on Wednesday, 7 January 2004.
“I have been granted a hearing before Mr Timothy Workman. He is one of the most senior district judges in England. The scheduling of this case before such a prominent judge is an indication of the seriousness with which my application is being taken”, said Mr Tatchell.
“I am applying for an arrest warrant and extradition order on charges of torture under UK and international law: Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which incorporates the UN Convention Against Torture 1984 into UK domestic law.
“Under Section 134, anyone who commits, authorises, colludes, acquiesces or condones acts of torture anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in Britain.
“It was under this law that General Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998. His arrest warrant was issued by a Bow Street magistrate. I hope my legal action against Mugabe will result in a similar historic legal judgement.
“If my application is granted, Mugabe could be arrested and extradited to Britain from any of the 100-plus countries with which Britain has an extradition treaty. These include countries he has visited over the last year, such as Switzerland, France, Malaysia, Thailand and South Africa.
“In support of my application, I have affidavits from Zimbabwe torture victims. They implicate Mugabe in the authorisation and condonement of torture. I also have reports from human rights groups attesting to the widespread use of torture with the knowledge and consent of the Zimbabwean government and its police, security and defence forces.
“It is inconceivable that Mugabe is not aware of the practice of torture by people under his jurisdiction. He has taken no steps to stop it. That makes him guilty under anti-torture law.
One of the affidavits is from Ray Choto. He was tortured in 1999. Then a journalist on The Standard newspaper in Harare, his affidavit states that at Cranborne military barracks he was “subjected to slaps, kicks, punches”, and was “beaten with a plank on my buttocks, on the soles of my feet”. He also suffered “asphyxiation by immersion in water bags, electric shock treatment.and (was) kept throughout in leg-irons and handcuffs”.
Choto’s affidavit directly implicates Mugabe. It declares: “I was advised during the course of my torture that the President of Zimbabwe had signed my death warrant”.
Mugabe has subsequently confirmed his acquiescence with Choto’s torture. “I will not condemn my army for having done that.they can do worse things than that,” he boasted to Voice of America radio.
“There are two big legal hurdles in my bid for an arrest warrant and extradition order”, says Mr Tatchell.
“The first obstacle is that the consent of the Attorney General is required for a prosecution under Britain’s anti-torture law, Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“In April 2002, at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court, I bought a legal case against Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, under the Geneva Convention Act 1957, on charges of war crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during the 1960s and 70s. Under this Act, the authorisation of the DPP is required for a prosecution. The judge at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court, Mr Nicholas Evans, accepted my argument that the DPP’s consent was not required for the initial stage of granting an arrest warrant.
“I am hopeful the court will also accept this argument in relation to the Mugabe case. The Attorney-General will then be put on the spot. Will he authorise Mugabe’s prosecution or block it?
“The second obstacle is the issue of sovereign immunity: the legislation and legal rulings that Heads of State, such as President Mugabe, are immune from prosecution.
“I have several strong legal arguments against sovereign immunity. These include the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal precedent that no one has immunity in cases of crimes against humanity, such as torture; and the UN Rome Statute 1998, which explicitly specifies that for grave crimes like torture a Head of State is not exempt from prosecution.
“Slobodan Milosevic was indicted for crimes against humanity in 1999, while he was Head of State of Yugoslavia. Last June, the Liberian leader, Charles Taylor, was served an arrest warrant on charges of “serious violations of international humanitarian law”, despite holding the office of President.
“During the Iraq war the UK government backed two US attempts to assassinate the then Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. If a Head of State can be assassinated, then surely a Head of State can be put on trial?
“Regardless of whether I win or lose, this case will be worthwhile in two respects:
“It will help draw world attention to the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, and add pressure on the world community to do something effective to end the tyranny there.
“If the court judgement goes against me, it will make a mockery of international human rights law. What is the point of having human rights conventions if the main abusers – Heads of State – are exempt from prosecution? I hope it will begin a global movement to end sovereign immunity for Heads of State”, said Mr Tatchell.