“Justice denied to Zimbabwean torture victims”.
London – UK – 14 January 2004
President Mugabe cannot be arrested or prosecuted for the crime of torture, according to a ruling in Bow Street Magistrate’s Court, London, this morning (Wednesday 14 January 2004).
Judge Timothy Workman ruled that President Mugabe, as a serving Head of State, has “absolute immunity” from arrest and prosecution (see quotes below from his judgement).
Mr Workman was delivering his verdict on an application for an arrest warrant, on charges of torture, filed by human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Mr Tatchell sought President Mugabe’s arrest under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which incorporates the UN Convention Against Torture 1984 into UK domestic law.
Commenting on the judge’s decision, Mr Tatchell described it as “a licence to torture”:
“This judgement gives President Mugabe, and all other Heads of State, a free hand to torture with impunity. It denies justice to the thousands of Zimbabweans who have been subjected to electric shock torture and other brutalities by Mugabe’s henchmen”, he said.
“What is the point of having laws against torture if the main abusers – Heads of State like President Mugabe – are exempt from prosecution? We may as well tear up the UN Convention Against Torture and throw it in the bin. It offers no protection or redress to people who are tortured at the behest of Heads of State.
“The verdict highlights the need for urgent reform of international human rights law, to end immunity for Heads of State for crimes against humanity, such as torture.
“The Attorney General should now take the lead in challenging this decision in the higher courts. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that internationally-agreed anti-torture laws are enforced. To stop torture, we have to send a signal that torturers everywhere – no matter how high their status – will be arrested and put on trial”, said Mr Tatchell
In his written ruling, the judge in the case, Mr Timothy Workman, said:
“Mr Tatchell has most thoroughly and carefully prepared this application for a warrant for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on allegations of torture in Zimbabwe. He has provided me with a wealth of information, both factually and on issues of international law..
“Whilst international law evolves over a period of time, international customary law, which is embodied in our Common Law, currently provides absolute immunity to any Head of State.
“I am satisfied that Robert Mugabe is President and Head of State of Zimbabwe and is entitled, whilst he is Head of State, to that immunity. He is not liable to any form of arrest or detention, and I am therefore unable to issue the warrant that has been applied for”, concluded Mr Workman.
Background to the arrest warrant application:
Mr Tatchell had applied, on 7 January 2004, for an arrest warrant and extradition order against President Mugabe on charges of torture under UK and international law: namely, Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the UN Convention Against Torture 1984.
According to Mr Tatchell:
“Under Section 134, anyone who commits, authorises, colludes, acquiesces or condones acts of torture anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in Britain.
“If an arrest warrant had been granted, President Mugabe could have been arrested and extradited to Britain if he set foot in any of the 100-plus countries with which Britain has an extradition treaty. These include countries he has visited over the last year and is likely to visit again, such as Switzerland, France, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and South Africa”, said Mr Tatchell.