Debunking the Myth of Independence of the NPRC Commissioners in Zimbabwe

Abstract

Scholars have long been interested in understanding the functions and efficacy of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) in promoting post-conflict justice and reconciliation, particularly in countries emerging from violent conflict. However, less well understood is how issues of autonomy and independence of commissioners condition the efficacy of TRCs. In joining this debate, I contend that how and why certain people are selected to be commissioners of TRCs has an impact on the legitimacy and success or lack thereof of such bodies. The article unpicks how and why the social status of the commissioners, their level of professionalism, independence and their political leanings (neutrality) impact on the integrity, efficacy and legitimacy of TRCs. Drawing on the Zimbabwean case study, I show how loyalty, past and current allegiance, selection criteria (methods) or appointment and conduct of commissioners shape the efficacy of the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission (NPRC). Such an investigation is relevant in contributing to a deeper understanding of the inner workings and legitimacy of TRCs in Africa and beyond as they seek to promote justice and reconciliation in post-conflict contexts.