Robson Chere, a fearless Zimbabwean activist, has filed a lawsuit against the country’s security forces, seeking a staggering $550,000 in damages for alleged abduction, torture, and waterboarding. Chere claims that on July 31, 2024, he was brutally dragged off a flight to Victoria Falls, where he was scheduled to attend the Africa Philanthropy Conference.

The nightmare began when a group of unknown individuals, some sporting Airports Company of Zimbabwe (ACZ) logos, stormed the plane and forcibly ejected Chere, along with three others: Samuel Gwenzi, Vusumuzi Moyo, and Namatai Kwekweza. The assailants, who remain unidentified, subjected Chere to hours of unimaginable torture, including:
– Physical Assault: Beaten with iron bars and wooden logs, leaving him with severe injuries
– Psychological Warfare: Threats to rape his wife and harm his children if he organized demonstrations during the SADC summit
– Waterboarding: A notorious torture technique that simulated drowning, leaving Chere traumatized
– Humiliation: His dreadlocks were forcefully plucked, and his phone was seized, with attackers forcing him to enter his PIN

The lawsuit alleges that police officers willfully cooperated with the captors, failing to conduct meaningful investigations. Chere’s lawyers from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) claim that the police were complicit in the torture, noting that Chere’s seized phone was later found in police custody.

Chere is demanding $550,000 in damages, broken down into:
– $100,000 for pain and suffering
– $200,000 for torture
– $250,000 for unlawful detention, trauma, and humiliation

The defendants, including ZRP Commissioner-General, Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage, ACZ, and Tafadzwa Hunda, have 10 days to respond to the summons. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment in Chere’s favor.

ZLHR argues that Chere’s constitutional rights were violated, specifically sections 51, 52, and 53 of the Constitution, which guarantee personal security, freedom from torture, and dignity. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants are vicariously liable, as the attackers “were acting within the scope and course of their employment”.