US embassy cable - 05HARARE395

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 000395 
 
SIPDIS 
 
AF/S FOR BNEULING 
NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR C. COURVILLE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/11/2010 
TAGS: PHUM, EAID, PGOV, PREL, ZI, Parliamentary Affairs 
SUBJECT: IS THE NGO BILL DEAD? 
 
REF: 2004 HARARE 2003 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires a.i. Eric T. Schultz under Section 1.4 
 b/d 
 
1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: The controversial NGO bill (reftel), 
passed by the Parliament in December, appears to have 
effectively expired due to President Mugabe's failure to sign 
it by the constitutionally prescribed deadline.  Some NGOs 
remain concerned that Mugabe may yet sign the bill into law 
and are acting accordingly.  However, the bill's quiet death 
could be Mugabe,s latest sop to domestic interests and 
international audiences in the run-up to parliamentary 
elections.  That said, the GOZ also signaled continued 
pressure on the NGO community with the announcement that it 
was investigating the accounts of 30 organizations.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
--------- 
NGO Bill Signing Deadline Passes 
--------- 
 
2.  (SBU) Section 51 of Zimbabwe,s Constitution provides 
that the President shall assent, or withhold his assent, of a 
bill within 21 days of its presentation to him by the 
Parliament.  If he withholds his assent, the bill must be 
returned to the Parliament and cannot be presented to him 
again without the support of "not less than two-thirds of the 
Parliament."  Parliamentary staff has confirmed to us that 
the NGO bill was date-stamped upon delivery to the President 
on January 24 and that the 21 day period therefore ended on 
February 14. 
 
3.   (SBU) On March 1, Father Fidelis, the Jesuit provincial 
for Zimbabwe (and a liberation veteran who still has regular 
access to Mugabe), told the Ambassador that President Mugabe 
had decided not to sign the bill in its current form. 
Fidelis said he had unsuccessfully lobbied Speaker Mnangagwa 
and Justice Minister Chinamasa to kill the bill and had 
finally approached Mugabe personally.  He said he had given 
Mugabe UN, church and NANGO (an NGO umbrella organization) 
critiques of the bill to read and that Mugabe had been 
appalled by the content.  Fidelis said Mugabe had concluded 
that the NGO bill was a part of the "Tsholotsho" plot of 
disgraced former Information Minister Moyo.  Fidelis 
predicted that Mugabe would either send the bill back to 
Parliament for amendment or just let it die. 
 
4.  (C) Neither the GOZ nor the NGO community has given any 
publicity to the bill's fate since the expiration of the 
signing deadline, and many in the NGO community still 
consider the bill in play regardless of the constitutional 
deadline.  A representative of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human 
Rights, for example, told us that they had been unable to 
verify the date of transmission to the President (we are 
seeking tangible evidence, e.g., a copy of the date-stamped 
instrument).  Moreover, some in the NGO community are 
convinced that if Mugabe were to decide to sign the bill 
belatedly, the Supreme Court would uphold his action 
regardless of its unconstitutionality.  Some have also 
asserted that the President could effectively implement the 
bill by Presidential decree even if a constitutional debate 
were to hold up the legislation. 
 
--------- 
More GOZ Threats 
--------- 
 
5.  (U) Meanwhile, the GOZ has publicly announced it will 
investigate 30 NGOs for suspected misappropriation of US$88 
million mobilized through UNDP after the GOZ made a 
consolidated appeal to the international community for 
assistance in 2003.  The report asserted that the funds were 
"deemed public funds because they were raised on behalf of 
the Government and the people of Zimbabwe."  According to the 
March 10 edition of the official Herald newspaper, Minister 
of Public Service, Labor and Social Welfare Paul Mangwana 
announced further on March 9 that the GOZ was going to 
require all NGOs to account for all funds received from 
donors. 
 
6.  (SBU) Among the 30 reportedly being investigated are 
seven USAID partners -- World Vision, Care, CRS/Strive, PSI, 
Advance Africa, JSI, and DAI/Lead.  Only two (World Vision 
and Care) were involved in the consolidated appeal.  All are 
involved in overt humanitarian assistance in consultation 
with relevant ministries, and would have no problem 
disclosing programmatic and financial reports to substantiate 
their ongoing work. 
 
--------- 
Comment 
--------- 
 
7.  (C) Mugabe,s "pocket veto," if it stands, may be another 
in a series of conciliatory gestures on the part of the GOZ's 
in the run-up to the election.  The Ambassador had made clear 
in several meetings with GOZ officials late last year that a 
veto of the bill would be seen by Washington as a positive 
development.  He had also intimated that ascribing it to 
Moyo, Mangwana and other disgraced "young Turks" would give 
Mugabe a face-saving way to kill the bill. 
 
8.  (C) However, the confusion and official silence 
surrounding the bill,s fate may also reflect continued 
divisions within the ruling party.  Reserve Bank Governor 
Gideon Gono has been an outspoken public and private critic 
of the bill and even the ZANU-PF-dominated parliamentary 
portfolio committee opposed its more draconian provisions. 
Minister Mangwana, who was the bill's principal architect, 
lost his ZANU-PF primary and appears on his way out of the 
Cabinet.  His long-term influence is waning, which is further 
undermining support for the bill.  In any event, the NGO bill 
already has served important ruling party purposes by sharply 
chilling the pre-election environment for democracy and 
governance NGOs even if it does not become law.  Moreover, 
many of these organizations are continuing to self-censor 
given the uncertainty surrounding the bill,s fate -- not a 
bad outcome for the ruling party. 
 
9.  (C) Whether the NGO bill becomes law or not, GOZ attempts 
to cow the NGO community will continue.  However, given GOZ 
concerns about its international image and Zimbabwe's ongoing 
humanitarian needs, there are limits.  The latest development 
appears to be more low-level harassment rather than a serious 
investigation.  In any event, it is consistent with 
long-standing GOZ efforts to bring humanitarian assistance in 
particular under more official control. 
SCHULTZ