The story of Joana Mamombe, a vocal MP for Harare West representing the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), reveals the troubling link between politics and the judiciary in Zimbabwe. Mamombe is charged with organizing an anti-government protest during the strict Covid-19 lockdown in May 2020. Her case stands out because her co-defendants, Cecilia Chimbiri and Netsai Marova, who faced the same charges, were acquitted.
Mamombe, Chimbiri, and Marova were arrested on May 26, 2020. They were charged with promoting public violence and disturbing the peace. These charges are based on the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and the Public Health (Covid-19 Prevention, Containment, and Treatment) (National Lockdown) Order. The three women had been outspoken critics of the government’s handling of food shortages during the lockdown, which caused widespread hunger and economic problems.
This case, which started over four years ago, shows concerns about the use of state power to silence dissent in Zimbabwe. While Chimbiri and Marova were recently acquitted, Mamombe will face trial starting July 9. This raises questions about the fairness of the judiciary. Alec Muchadehama, the defense lawyer, commented on the strange ruling, given the identical situations of the co-defendants.
Joana Mamombe’s political journey has been full of challenges and marked by persecution. She was elected to parliament at the age of 25 in 2018 and has been targeted for her outspoken criticism of government policies. She has been arrested and detained many times, most notably for 68 days in 2019 on treason charges. In 2020, she was abducted and tortured, an act she says was done by state agents. She was later acquitted of publishing false information about this abduction. These trials and ongoing legal battles have affected not only her but also the taxpayers.
Despite these challenges, Mamombe has remained a dedicated public servant. As the parliamentary chair of the Environment Committee, she has worked for legislative changes and environmental protection. However, her political future is now uncertain due to conflicts within her party and the controversial rise of Sengezo Tshabangu, who has taken on leadership roles with alleged support from the government and security agencies.
Mamombe’s repeated targeting raises important questions about the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The selective application of justice, where an opposition figure is repeatedly harassed and prosecuted while others in similar situations are acquitted, shows a judicial process that seems influenced by political motives. This pattern not only weakens democracy but also erodes public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice and equality.
As Mamombe’s trial approaches, the international community and local observers will be closely watching the developments. The outcome will likely have an impact beyond Zimbabwe’s borders, serving as a measure of the state of human rights and judicial independence in the country. Meanwhile, Mamombe’s resilience continues to inspire many who fight for justice and democracy, highlighting the crucial role of the judiciary in protecting the principles that democratic societies are built on.
The story of Joana Mamombe is not just about one person’s fight against a legal system. It reflects the larger issues of political repression and judicial integrity in Zimbabwe. As her trial begins, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for fairness and justice in the country. The world will be watching to see if Zimbabwe can uphold the values of democracy and human rights that are essential for any free society.