African Union outspoken on international sanctions on Zimbabwe but silent on human rights abuses

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) designated 25 October as a day for solidarity against sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the European Union (EU), United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) nearly 20 years ago. The targeted sanctions were applied in response to human rights violations, government policies and actions that impede democracy, rule of law and respect for human and property rights. 

In Zimbabwe, the day will be marked by pomp and ceremony and an all-night music concert to protest against the economic hardship caused by the sanctions. 

A month ago, the US updated its sanctions list on Zimbabwe. It added Police Deputy Commissioner-General Stephen Mutamba and removed 11 others deemed to no longer threaten democracy and human rights in the country. On the list were individuals who died or were removed from government, like Olivia Muchena, who was fired from her ministerial post in 2014. 

SADC’s anti-sanctions day follows a major show of solidarity by the African Union (AU) and African leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in September. SADC chair and Democratic Republic of the Congo president Félix Tshisekedi and other regional heads of state spoke out against the Zimbabwe sanctions. In his capacity as AU chair, Senegal’s president Macky Sall led the continent’s call for their removal. What Africa’s leaders didn’t proffer, however, was an alternative. 

The AU’s response seems to contradict its position on particular types of sanctions. The continental body isn’t opposed to targeted sanctions per se — indeed, the AU imposes such sanctions on its member states. Instead, the AU is against comprehensive economic sanctions. Those issued against Zimbabwe are targeted, which suggests this wave of support is more about anti-imperialist and Pan-African narratives pushed by Zimbabwe’s government than facts. 

The US maintains two sets of sanctions on Zimbabwe. One targets “specially designated nationals” who undermine democratic processes. The directives prohibit any American citizen or entity from having commercial dealings with such people or entities. The second set of sanctions — which aren’t in force — direct any US citizen in a position of influence in international financial institutions to block credit to Zimbabwe. 

While African governments have united in denouncing the sanctions, they’ve been mum on the wanton rights abuses, weaponisation of the law and violence unleashed on Zimbabwe’s opposition and political activists. Does that mean Africa condones these actions? Where is the brutalised citizen to seek recourse? 

Current mechanisms provide little assistance. Onerous procedures make it difficult for citizens to access the African Court of Justice and Human Rights to report state abuses. Closer to home, the SADC Tribunal is all but defunct after Zimbabwe put up a spirited diplomatic offensive against it. The Zimbabwean government is dexterous at such moves.

The targeted sanctions are more or less symbolic; a blunt instrument to enforce behaviour change. For most individuals on the US sanctions list, the prospect of travelling to the US has always been remote, so banning them is of little import. However, sanctions can be a deterrent to some risk-averse investors.