Deep concern has been expressed by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) at the introduction by the Rhodesian regime of the new Indemnity and Compensation Act. The Act, which is retrospective to 1 December 1972, protects members of the security forces and other employees of the regime from civil proceedings being taken against them as a result of acts committed "in good faith for the purpose of or in connection with the suppression of terrorism or the maintenance of public order". Despite an adverse report from the Senate Legal Committee and outspoken protests by African MPs, churchmen and others throughout Rhodesia during the introduction of the Indemnity and Compensation Bill in September last year, it duly passed into law in October. The Senate, although initially agreeing that the Bill contravened the Rhodesian Declaration of Rights, later voted unanimously in its favour on the grounds that its provisions were needed "in the national interest". The ICJ points out that nowhere in the Act are such crucial concepts as "good faith", "terrorism" or "the maintenance of public order" defined, and that, by protecting the security forces in advance against the consequences of illegalities or atrocities committed by them, the Act "amounts almost to an invitation to excess".
Mr Niall McDermot, the secretary-general of the ICJ, stated at the end of a visit to Rhodesia in October that he had "received much evidence while in Rhodesia of violent brutality not only by terrorists against security forces and civilians they suspect but also by security forces against Africans they suspect". He emphasised that he was particularly concerned at the methods used by the security police during interrogation and stressed the importance of a high-level government decision to eradicate torture and other ill-treatment. The passing of the Indemnity and Compensation Act, by ruling out impartial adjudication of complaints by the Courts, has been a step in precisely the opposite direction.
Already, the Act is known to have been put into effect to block civil proceedings initiated early in 1975 against Chief Chirau, President of the Council of Chiefs, and a prominent member of the Rhodesian Senate. The case in question was documented by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Rhodesia. On 3 February 1975, Cyril and Francis Makunda, two brothers living in a kraal under Chief Chirau's jurisdiction in the Sinoia area, and members of the African National Council (ANC) were summoned to the chief's court. They were questioned by the chief regarding their positions in the ANC and assaulted in person by him. Chief Chirau told them that "he did not want political affairs introduced into his area". After persistent kicking and punching the two men were released. They went straight to hospital, where they were found to have extensive bruising and one, a fractured rib.
Soon after the attack on the Makundas, their attorneys in Salisbury began a civil action against Chief Chirau, demanding R$1,200 on behalf of each brother for assault. The chief, however, as a government-paid and appointed official, comes under the protection of the Act. In March, a letter was received from the Assistant Commissioner of Police for the district, advising the brothers that no prosecution was to be instituted against Chief Chirau without the written authority of the Minister of Law and Order. Within weeks of the Indemnity and Compensation Bill becoming law the Makundas received a certificate signed by the Minister directing that the proceedings underway in the High Court "shall not be continued." Under the Act, the complainants have no right of appeal against such a certificate.
Evidence of police brutality towards suspects has come to light during a number of recent trials. Many defendants have spoken of assault and torture in an effort to elicit statements or confessions. Phineas Domboko and Chabaya Gabriel, for example, who appeared in the Salisbury High Court in December on charges of murder and of contravening the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, claimed that they had been tortured to force them to admit to being involved with guerillas. Domboko stated in court that he had been given electric shocks by a police officer, beaten, and had a human skull rubbed against his lips until they bled. Gabriel said that following police assaults he had suffered a broken bone in one hand and a broken rib. Their allegations were dismissed as unfounded by the presiding judge, although the two men were eventually acquitted.
Brazio Chimungondoro, a resident of Chimanda Tribal Trust Land, Mount Darwin, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in August 1975 on charges of killing four South African policemen and assisting "terrorists", also claimed in the Salisbury High Court that he had been subjected to electric shock torture. Marks were displayed on the upper part of his body. The judge, however, ruled that since the State had not submitted any statement alleged to have been made by the accused, it was not necessary for the Court to make any finding or to comment on this part of Chimungondoro's evidence.
In December, a District Officer posted to a keep in Chiweshe Tribal Trust Land, was fined R$250 and given a six months suspended prison sentence for assaulting an African District Assistant. Four other District Assistants, found guilty with him, were also fined. The District Officer, a white man aged 22, said in his defence that his Assistant had been insubordinate, absent without leave, and had assaulted tribesmen. He claimed that two weeks prior to the offence he had been given permission by the District Commissioner to introduce military-type punishments to enforce discipline among his Assistants. In this case the victim had been kicked, punched, hit with a belt and a hosepipe, and made to crawl on the ground with sandbags tied to his shoulders.
Allegations of ill-treatment of new recruits at army training schools, published in the Rhodesian press in November, led to an official inquiry and a promise from the Minister of Defence of severe action against any member of the armed forces who abused his authority.
