**8. Justice and Reparations**

The balance between retributive and restorative justice often puts CiM members in a bind. Retributive justice tends to be associated with the liberal secular critique, rather than with religion whose members are expected not to focus on punishment or retribution. Fr B expressed the dilemma that sometimes ensues amongs<sup>t</sup> the members regarding restorative and retributive justice:

Restorative justice is good, in that we are trying to restore what has been destroyed. But again, some things cannot be restored. If a family loses a member, there is no way we can restore that though again punitive justice can act as a deterrent, because in Zimbabwe the culture of impunity has gone on for too long. And it's now very difficult to deal with that, so some form of punitive justice, especially for serious crimes like murder, rape, I would say let's go for punitive justice.

Fr B concurred that some form of restorative justice concerning people who lost property and their livelihood due to political violence must be done. Demands for compensation are understandable where people are struggling to eke out a living. While CiM emphasises restorative justice, retributive justice is not ruled out as a deterrent measure against a culture of impunity (Waziweyi 2011, p. 66). It is here that it accentuates retributive justice in a way that mainstream churches do not do.

Regarding retributive justice through reparations, Bishop B referred to the Old Testament: "In the OT reconciliation meant that if you stole my cow, for genuine reconciliation to occur, you have to pay four, not one." Asking for compensation for what one has taken or making up for a crime committed is biblical. Fr A had grea<sup>t</sup> respect for the African tradition, in this case, specifically the Shona religion. He remarked, "I am arguing that even traditional leaders can play a part. If I took your chicken, I can go to the traditional leader and say, I took his chicken and I want to give it back. We can resolve that at that level." This resonates with Waziweyi's assertion that among the Shona, the wronged used to spell

out what he or she wanted (*kubata makuku*) as paymen<sup>t</sup> if they were brothers or relatives, and *kuripa* as compensation if not related (Waziweyi 2011, p. 65). In this way, judiciary costs are lowered. Restitution is, however, easier to deal with when only one side is wrong, but not when both or all sides in the conflict have lost property. Who will compensate whom, and what about those permanently injured, let alone those who died, becomes the question.

What we see here is that while CiM comprises Christian members, they do not underestimate the role of African philosophy and culture. *Kubata makuku* and *kuripa,* outlined above and along with others, are summarized in the African philosophy concept of *ubuntu*/*unhu*—a person is a person with or through other people (see Mbiti 1969, pp. 108–9; Tutu 1999, pp. 34–36). *Ubuntu* facilitates seeing oneself in another person. This approach thus changes the perspective of dealing with the conflict. While not opposed by the mainstream churches, most of the time the mainstream churches promote Christian values of dealing with the conflict and tend to be silent on African philosophical and cultural values. CiM foregrounds African philosophy and culture's connection to both retributive and restorative justice and truth-telling.
