THE opposition Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (Zapu) has filed an urgent High Court chamber application seeking to stop the Gukurahundi community outreach hearings, which are set to begin today and will be led by traditional chiefs.
The hearings, aimed at addressing the atrocities of the 1980s Gukurahundi conflict, have drawn sharp criticism from Zapu, which argues that the process is unlawful and biased.
In court documents seen by NewsDay, Zapu president Michael Sibangilizwe Nkomo said the involvement of traditional leaders in the hearings lacked legal foundation and risked further traumatising victims.
“The chiefs, as traditional leaders, have no mandate to lead such a national process,” Nkomo said in his founding affidavit.
“We are of the firm view that the National Council of Chiefs is unlikely to be impartial and unbiased, leading to a regressive outcome.”
The application cites President Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Local Government and Public Works minister and the National Council of Chiefs as respondents.
Zapu contends that the hearings, initiated following a 2019 agreement between the President and the Matabeleland Collective, are unconstitutional.
“The Matabeleland Collective has no authority to represent Gukurahundi victims,” Nkomo argued.
- Ziyambi’s Gukurahundi remarks revealing
- Giles Mutsekwa was a tough campaigner
- New law answers exhumations and reburials question in Zim
- Abducted tourists remembered
Keep Reading
Court papers reveal that Zapu had previously petitioned the President to suspend the hearings, but received no response.
The party also raised concern over the closed-door nature of the hearings, warning that this could intimidate victims and undermine transparency.
National Council of Chiefs president Chief Lucas Mtshane Khumalo confirmed in a media interview that preparations for the hearings were being finalised.
“The exercise will take place in all chiefs’ jurisdictions starting tomorrow,” he said.
However, some chiefs expressed doubts, citing logistical challenges.
Zapu is seeking an interim interdict to halt the hearings pending a final court ruling.
The party has proposed an alternative process involving an independent commission, arguing that the current initiative “protects perpetrators” and fails to deliver justice.
The High Court is yet to rule on the urgency of the application.
If granted, the interim order will suspend the hearings until the matter is heard.
