The case of Joana Mamombe, a Member of Parliament for Harare West representing the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), epitomizes the alarming intersection of politics and judiciary in Zimbabwe. Charged with orchestrating an anti-government protest during the rigorous Covid-19 lockdown in May 2020, Mamombe’s plight offers a stark contrast to the recent acquittal of her co-defendants, Cecilia Chimbiri and Netsai Marova, despite facing the same charges.

Mamombe, Chimbiri, and Marova were apprehended on May 26, 2020. They faced allegations of promoting public violence and breaching peace, under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, and violating the Public Health (Covid-19 Prevention, Containment, and Treatment) (National Lockdown) Order. They had vocally criticized the government’s response to food shortages during the lockdown, a period marked by extensive hunger and economic distress across Zimbabwe.

This case, lingering for over four years, underscores the alleged manipulation of state machinery to quash dissent in Zimbabwe. While Chimbiri and Marova have been acquitted, Mamombe’s impending trial on July 9 invites scrutiny over the judiciary’s consistency and impartiality. Defense counsel Alec Muchadehama has openly questioned the peculiarities of the rulings, given the identical circumstances shared by the co-defendants.

Elected at 25 in 2018, Mamombe’s political journey has been tumultuous and marred by ongoing persecution. Her tenure in parliament has been punctuated by numerous arrests and detentions, including a significant 68-day pre-trial detention in 2019 on charges of treason, and a harrowing episode in 2020 involving her abduction and torture, which she attributes to state agents. Despite being acquitted of publishing falsehoods concerning this abduction, the continuous legal challenges have imposed significant strain on her and the taxpayers.

Despite these challenges, Mamombe has diligently served as the parliamentary chair of the Environment Committee, championing legislative reforms and advocating for environmental protection. However, her political future hangs in the balance amid internal party disputes and the controversial emergence of Sengezo Tshabangu, who has reportedly ascended to leadership positions with support from executive and security sectors.

The persistent targeting of Mamombe raises serious concerns about the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The selective administration of justice – where an opposition figure faces continuous harassment and legal prosecution under similar conditions as others who are acquitted – points to a judicial process seemingly influenced by political biases. This pattern not only jeopardizes democracy but also diminishes public confidence in the institutions designed to uphold justice and equality.

As Mamombe’s trial date approaches, both international and local observers are keenly watching. The outcome of this trial could resonate well beyond Zimbabwe’s borders, serving as a measure of the country’s commitment to human rights and judicial independence. Meanwhile, Mamombe’s unwavering resilience continues to inspire advocates of justice and democratic integrity, underscoring the judiciary’s vital role in protecting the principles foundational to democratic societies.