The Human Rights Implications of the Application of the Death Penalty in Zimbabwe

Abstract

Capital punishment has been widely applied by countries since time immemorial. The concept, however, is highly controversial. That is, on the one hand, the anti-abolitionist states argue that it is an effective form of punishment, on the other side; the abolitionist states contend that it is an unjustifiable infringement of people’s fundamental right to life. There have been calls, both regionally and globally, for a moratorium on the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was promulgated as a move towards the abolition of the death penalty in all countries and states in the world. Article 1 (2) of the instrument states that, “Each state party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction”. At regional level, Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that all human beings are inviolable and entitled to the respect and integrity of their person. As such, no one may be deprived arbitrarily of this right. In addition, Article 1 of the Protocol to the African Charter provides that the death penalty shall not be applied by state parties in their territories or any person within their jurisdiction. Despite the current global and regional trends towards the abolition of the death penalty and its inherent controversy, Zimbabwe remains anti-abolitionist, and entrenched the death penalty in section 48 (2) of its 2013 Constitution. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology, the study critically analyses section 48 (2) (d) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution, and examines how it affects key fundamental rights as well as the way forward in the light of the international human rights standards on the death penalty.